i love christianity...

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by supernova_smash, Apr 17, 2002.

  1. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member


    Would be easier... but not better...

    It's not in MY nature... then... this already proves it wrong...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xev Registered Senior Member

    But truer.

    I did not say all men. It does not prove my thesis wrong.

    So, Nelson, your 'mental illness' is common across all cultures. This makes it not an aberration but a common phenomena.

    So you've just exculpated every rapist, ever. Nice going. I wonder what one of their victims might say to you 'mental illness and love' gibberish?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member


    We are discussing about EVERYONE... about humans in general.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    This "aberration" has a common cause in all cultures...

    This is getting repeptitive...

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Xev Registered Senior Member

    I've never felt the urge to rape anyone either, so that dosen't work.

    We are discussing humans in general, not every human.

    It is an aberration amoung the general population.
    However, it has been widespread throughout history. Common cause? Decadence? What a cop out! What ever happened to personal responsibility?!
  8. Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

    I have to agree with Xev here. Excusing action with motivation whether psychological or physical (XYY chromosomes, testosterone, instinct, elevated sugar levels) negates personal responsibility and makes us all children.

    Personally, I take offense at this. I grew up and became an adult. My action is my own. If I have inherited tendencies towards violence (of any sort) it is my responsibility to control those tendencies. Those who cannot show only that they have no self control and are irresponsible. Like children, they need to be punished and educated, sometimes severely.

    It is a telling statistic that the single, most effective, deterrence to violent and criminal behavior is education.

    Anyone who argues that violence should be forgiven on the grounds of internal motivators is arguing against personal responsibility and for the concept that we are merely biological machines without reason or self-determination.

    To TruthSeeker who wishes to forgive everyone: Even God requires repentance. Only a fool forgives one who is not repentant.

  9. Tyler Registered Senior Member

    Amazing. Simply amazing.

    Now you think you can redefine insanity.

    I'm amazed.
  10. Tyler Registered Senior Member

    I thought you said you've read psychology. If this was half-true you would realize that the term 'insane' does not have a debateable definition. I'm actually not surprised that you think you know more than every psychiatrist and psychologist on earth. Pretty funny, actually.
  11. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member


    We can define what's insane by seeing if it's harmful or not to someone...

    Of course there's no actual definition for insanity...
    That's why I say to my friends:
    "Everyone is crazy...
    Besides me..."

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  12. noktvs Carnal-Siddha Registered Senior Member

    Raithere said:
    This is true. What about Revelation 20:15, that says:

    "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

    Does this sound like it comes from a god who is "All-Loving" and "All-Forgiving"? If he was, why would he be throwing people into a lake of fire? And why does the bible say over and over again that "I am a jealous god". YHVH seems pretty testy to me, like a grumpy old man with hemroids, or like a spoiled child. He is basically saying; Worship me, me, me, don't even look at another god. All those gods and goddessess that have been worshiped for thousands of years before I came along, you know what, they're just bs, really I'm the only god, don't even *think* about those others, or I'll kill you, or curse your family, or, or (stamps his foot, then gets an idea and flashes an evil grin) throw you in a lake of fire for all eternity! With a god like that, it's no wonder Christianity breeds intolerance. Anway, aside from my anti-christian rant and more on track with the current debate of this thread, I have to agree with Xev and Raithere here. No matter what the motivation of the rapist is, you can not release him from responsability of his own actions. It comes down to a choice he makes at some level. Even if he feels it is out of his control (which most do), than that person should go seek help and not continue to perpetuate this awful crime again and again. If you just "love" them and forgive them, they will continue to "love" their victims.
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2002
  13. Adam §Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥ Registered Senior Member

    In modern psychology (here at least), the word "insane" is not included. It is a legal term, not a psychological term. Psychology does not make the classifications "sane" and "insane". Rather, it tends to use ideas such as "common belief", "shared ethical standards", and so on.
  14. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member


    Yes. But psychiatry use the term "insane" widely...
    That's one of the reasons I don't like it...


    Revelations 20:15 :

    "15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."


    Everyone that accepts Love in their Hearts go to Heaven.
    Which means that everyone that is compassionate and altruist, simple and honest(accept Love), have a good life(Heaven).

    Everyone that doesn't accept Love in their Hearts is cast into the lake of fire, in Hell.Which means that those who don't Love, who mistreat others, who is not honest, compassionate, altruist and other virtues live a bad life(Hell, lake of fire).

    Does this make sense...?

  15. Tyler Registered Senior Member

    Modern psychiatry also states that people who commit crimes are not necessarily unstable mentally.
    Can you show me anywhere this is contradicted nelson?

    (my guess is you'll just write something like; you consider someone who commits crimes normal?)
  16. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member


    I don't know Modern Psychiatry...

  17. Tyler Registered Senior Member

    Am I the only one who remember nelson making previous claims that he knew it quite well?
  18. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    I know Modern Pscychology which is VERY different...
  19. daktaklakpak God is irrelevant! Registered Senior Member

    So you consider the FBI are insane because they kill the gunman in a hostage rescue mission? You think all the war veterans are insane because they had shot/killed other people before?
    I have no trouble shooting anyone who breaks in my house at night. Am I insane?
    Hmm, I wonder how the woman thought about a man who love both her and her rapist.
    So you believe love and forgiveness aren't rewards, but treatments?
  20. noktvs Carnal-Siddha Registered Senior Member


    "Everyone that accepts Love in their Hearts go to Heaven. Which means that everyone that is compassionate and altruist, simple and honest(accept Love), have a good life(Heaven).Everyone that doesn't accept Love in their Hearts is cast into the lake of fire, in Hell.Which means that those who don't Love, who mistreat others, who is not honest, compassionate, altruist and other virtues live a bad life(Hell, lake of fire). Does this make sense...?"

    Honestly, no it doesn't make sense. I mean, I see where you're coming from, but I disagree. So are you saying that the bible teaches "heaven" is merely living a good life here on earth? And "hell" is living a bad life? Because these are highly subjective terms. For instance, a "good life" for me includes lots of sex, drugs and rock and roll. I doubt that this is what the bible means by "heaven".
  21. Tyler Registered Senior Member

    Exactly Noktvs! Which is why you and I and Xev and Cris shall all end up in hell soon! And we'll enjoy it with our drugs, sex and rock and roll.
  22. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member



    Do you really want me to answer that question...?
    Besides that, I'm not to judge you...



    Buddhists and Taoists says that excesses creates suffering...

    If you go drunk tonight, you might have a HUGE headache tomorrow morning...

  23. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Practical reality and other follies

    Wow. What a topic. It seems to be going in a few interesting directions. But, first, obligations ....

    We might choose to accept nothing as real, but the question then becomes one of how such an assessment affects the situation at hand.

    Propositions of everything and nothing are, indeed, meaningless, but such things do contribute to the decisions people make which affect themselves and others in the world. We may speak of such propositions as meaningless, but that is only because they are undefined. Even lacking definition, those theoretically-absolute propositions still have a real effect in people's lives.

    On the broad level, ideas of God affect the decisions people make; abstract hope in the face of abject reality. They respond to their absolute principles without defining them, seeking a result which is merely assumed to be known. On a more specific level, we can see reliance on absolutes in any individual of our acquaintance, and even among our own posts at Sciforums. Almost the entirety of the Religion Forum operates according to this dependence, regardless of which side people choose. Read it in the circumscribed definitions of words, the ill-defined concepts upon which people stand. Start with the easiest to identify, such as the self-aggrandizing partial citations of the Bible offered by some of our Christian posters. There's a year's worth of odd justifications in the archives; you can read Christians asserting militaristic metaphors and claiming license of the conqueror while actively pushing aside the more commonly-advertised precepts of Christian love, community, faith in God, ad nauseam. It's in my own posts, largely undefined and intentionally so; it's in any atheist's posts here.

    No human being can escape reliance on theoretic absolutes. Just watch how we demand "evidence" of each others' positions and then take it as literally as possible, seeking only the refutation or support we already presuppose. Consider any number of evolution/creation topics we put ourselves through over the last year. There is a tendency on the part of theists to be too literal while the atheistic counterpoint depends on that literal clinging. At some point, all of these issues we discuss are, in fact, truly non-issues. Such as creationism. None can determine the origin of the Universe, and it's entirely possible that the scientists, getting closer to the nature of the Universe, might actually stumble upon a dotty old man hiding on a planet somewhere cloaked behind the unstable veil of an excited molecule. But this point is actually irrelevant. What people are arguing about, at the heart of the creationism debate, has nothing to do with religious faith but with faith that reality exists. One side seeks to rewrite perceptive and observational standards, wishes literally to throw out the scientific method in order to make science better. Therein lies the actual creationist fight--the fight to destroy reliance on the absolute of observational objectivity.

    And here we'll jump sideways. Conceptualize that creationist fight and reinsert it into a living, operating perspective. With everything/nothing propositions, philosophical absolutes, the living experience suddenly becomes monstrously irrational. Now it's not the drink I'm handing you but the question of whether or not I'm trying to poison you. It's not about the facts of an immediate situation, but what you're trying to prove in the long run. Watch it in people's relationships. They expect absolute archetypes of people and it doesn't happen. So they distrust each other. Gee-Zero-Dee and I were discussing my infamous partner in relation to Wicca method the other day; that partner is an excellent example.

    Have you ever known someone who either viewed complete fantasy or, at least, a completely separate reality than you do? Think of it in terms of a classical conundrum of which I can only remember one form off the top of my head: If six people witness an event and give you six generally-agreeing but different accounts of what happened, what has really happened?

    A couple of years ago, a cabbie shot a fare outside the building where I worked. What was clear from witness accounts was that a man got out of a cab and shot another man who was getting out of the cab. Beyond that: was it an orange, green, or yellow cab? (We also have crimson/silver and white taxis in Seattle.) Was the shooter African-American, Middle-Eastern, or Indian-American? (Dark skin was the only common factor.) Tall or short? Broad or thin? Beard? Turban? What was he wearing? Sure, they eventually got the guy; someone wrote the serial number down from the back of his cab. But does this mean that a large number of the witnesses didn't actually see the event happen?

    Thus, is what we perceive what is actually real?

    Our perception is only a reconstruction of events agreed to be taking place. This "agreement" exists even when we're observing alone. Ufo and ghost sightings should tell us much about that point. There are rules of reality. I had the strangest observational experience the other day when Captain Kirk (å la "Wrath of Khan") was giving me some strange advice about life. But the "agreement" dictates that I was dreaming. I'm not one to violate that convention; I find many of our subclassifications of perception, such as dreaming, quite useful.

    Some event occurs in the Universe. You see the light reflected from or generated by the event, hear the sounds, and, with intellect and time, come to various conclusions. Now, is what you have perceived, even smelled, felt the concussion of, and so forth, truly all defined within your senses? Is there no part of that event which escapes your perception? Ah, then have you really witnessed the event?

    There is real, insofar as something is and does in the Universe, and then there is the "real" that we humans define and agree upon. The two realities are, in fact, somewhat different. The practical reality is always more limited than the actual reality, but the practical reality defines what is relevant to us about an event.

    Practical reality, to borrow a couple terms from Piaget, involves accommodation and assimilation of data. How one receives data, and what one does to make that data part of the larger perception dictate the reaction one undertakes. And here is where I diverge from much of society: I feel the practical reality has become too influential in the face of the abstract reality.

    Abstract reality: A distressed subject walks along the I-5 bridge in Seattle to a point approximately at the middle of it where subject climbs rail and threatens to jump. Police respond accordingly. The reality of the situation is that you have a suicidal on a major highway in a town that is still on pins and needles. The situation gets ugly, with jammed commuters taunting the suicidal, telling her to jump for Chrissake, so I can get to work, ad nauseam. Abstract reality: human life and civic duty on I-5 in the middle of the morning rush.

    Practical reality: I'm late for work, goddamnit! Why doesn't the bitch just jump?

    What of this situation is real? As other topics have shown, I'm one who eschews a certain tendency toward restricted objectivity that I've found symptomatic within my atheist experience. While the current question, I feel, transcends that moment, the restricted objectivity I accuse in atheism is a human symptom, and not merely an atheistic symptom. The practical reality mentioned above is merely a different manifestation of a common process.

    What, then, is real? Each event is, in its purest and most isolated essence, wholly and truly real. But what of our perception of an event?

    The functioning, practical reality is the prevailing reality, and the limited nature of that reality does sometimes come to irreconcilable heads, such as hallucinatory nine-headed cactus demons.

    Thus, one accepts all as real insofar as it has a functional necessity of reality. One need not go on with an abstract belief in God if no such belief genuinely exists. But when you're sitting back-to-back for hours on end to with a suicidal to ensure that no, the Devil will not be leaping out of the corner behind you, it matters none whether the belief is founded in reality or a somatic reaction to malaria pills. What matters is that this person is of some (subjective, as determined by the functioning, practical reality) importance to you, and should not be left to fend these Devils by herself. Reality, for those hours, becomes the warding off of Devils, despite what one believes about their actual existence. I could, in such times, say, [i}What's your f--king problem? There are no f--king Devils![/i] But such a solution lacks both compassion and efficacy. The factors of the psyche I was dealing with in this example largely dictated that such a forward approach to the situation would only exacerbate the distress. The functional reality of the situation demonstrates that the best thing to do is to get through the night and worry about the Devils when everybody (including the fearful psyche) has a better perspective on it.

    But getting through the night is, as you've pointed out, its own issue:
    The first thing I'll note is that rifles are far too serpentine in their suggestions. The practical reality asserts that the situation must necessarily be handled.

    But here we see the retreat to the absolutes. It comes in an assumption that accepting the cactus-demons as real somehow outweighs the obligation of preventing violence against humans. This is the problem with anything being an absolute, whether real, assumed, or constructed. My only demand is that the police shooter take him down only after I'm down. But the whole thing largely depends on the situation.

    When you're standing off the county nut-case at his shotgun shack with dogs and armament and fellow militiamen on the compound, does it really matter what reality is? Or does such a question rely too much on the practical reality and not enough on the abstract reality? After all, be it a nine-headed cactus demon or a UN-Zionist plot to overthrow the world, execute the Sabbatarians, and put the rest of us in tiger cages while we're indoctrinated as vegans, the reality of the situation dictates that these "not real" entities are, in fact, exerting quite the influence on the actions of the nut-case.

    One can simply note that the result is the reality--whether it's a dead demon-shooter or a dead conspiracy-theorist. To abide strictly by this limited reality is to overlook vital issues. In American history, the nebulous ideas of political and religious liberty drove picture-frame objectivity out of the collective consciousness for all time. After all, it is only a subjective notion of right and equality that justifies the revolution, an objective uprising against a real authority.

    Yet to us neither the prior authority nor the revolution that shed it are actually real; they are events of the past.

    Taken to its extreme, the relationship between perception and reality is such that one cannot prove to another that either person exists without employing a certain amount of irrationality.

    And, as such, what does it matter if the idea-called-friend picks up a thing-called-rifle and starts shooting at the thing-called-nine-headed-cactus-demon, whether that thing is "real" or not?
    If persecution seems strong, it's only because of the subjective social context attached to it. To use the word "bigot", for example, connotes nothing at the barest level but strong and irrational feelings. One can be a bigot against chocolate, for instance. Why, though, for instance, does Adam argue against my declarations of bigotry? Because we're both talking about something which, subjectively, is of greater stake than an irrational conclusion in one's mind. Persecution is only a strong word in the same way that bigot indicates moral negativity.

    In terms of the idea that an atheist attacks irrationality, one must recall that the limit at which an atheist stops attacking irrational is, in itself, irrational. That is, an atheist chooses to attack and not to attack. To "attack irrationality" works well enough in general terms of whether or not God exists, but the true reality of it is that any atheist is just as irrational as any theist when considering irrational questions. In the end, such attacks against irrationality define particularly well the limits of the individual doing the attacking. Such attacks against irrationality help define the point at which the attacking rationalist ceases seeking irrationality. The atheist's acceptance of the irrational is no different at its base than the theist's.

    Do atheists marry? Of course they do. But why? Aside from the tax issue, that is. But seriously--do atheists love? Yes, they do. Is that love any more quantifiable than a theist's? Not in any way I can see. Love is an irrational sentiment, just like fear of the unknown. Yet atheists love their spouses, as I recall, statistically better than born-again Christians, at least. By and large, though, it's fair to say that atheist's love their spouses at least as much as any other group you can classify.

    Now ... why?

    Why do atheists not attack the irrationality of love?

    Persecuting the irrational? Attacking irrationality?

    Attacking irrationality as proof? It works well on the directly a/theist level, but it's just as much an identification as any other label.

    Observationally--objectively--it can be said that the atheist tends to approach irrationality with an eye on what rewards or prices that irrationality brings. Being loved by the God of the Christians, for instance, sucks. It means feeling horrible and submitting yourself to some higher power that tells you how to think, act, and feel. Being loved by one's wife is much more rewarding. The irrationality of God threatens the individual, but the love of one's wife is (supposed to be) much more beneficial.

    (Question: Is it love, or did you just call it love and move on? It's a question nobody answers correctly because they all try to answer it definitively.)

    Questions of God are, indeed, quite circular. But to attack the irrational simply because one deems it irrational seems to make an end out of a process; has one found rationality, or merely exscinded enough of the irrational to call it rational? Like many things, unforgiving rationality works well in theory only. What flexibility one shows, and one's criteria for showing flexibility, determine what becomes rational.
    One of the sad things about religion is that a religionist wanting a ring wouldn't know gold if it hopped up and wrapped itself around their finger.

    However, I think it is quite obvious that self-aware entities are less rational. Self-awareness requires something to compare itself against; one can no more distinguish the self from a homogenized singular without creating disparate states. That is, the self does not exist without an "other" to be "not-self". A meandering back to my college days might help:

    • I once took an Anthropology class on sexuality that included, among its literature, a report by a feminist who classified rape in lower animals. Flies were a great example, unfortunately. (Unfortunately, that is, for the hypothesis.) Apparently, female flies mate with males based on impressions of strength (wealth, &c), e.g. food supply. Observed is a trend for weaker male flies to attack stronger flies with no apparent purpose but to contact the food supply, by which scent the weaker male will (after retreating from the fight) attract females. This "deceptive mating" the writer had classified as rape. Now, anybody who has had the misfortune of witnessing feline coitus knows that there is a certain amount of coercing, cajoling, or downright forcing of the female that must be undertaken. Even when the cat is presenting herself, well ... like I said--if you've ever had the misfortune ....

    The point is that rape is a crime among people because we can calculate it. Perhaps rape will be shown to be an overriding need to procreate, but all signs point away from it.

    The issues which change humanity from the economy of nature to the economy of will are, in fact, distractions. Life should, essentially, eat, procreate, and die. Sleep is optional. Smelling the tulips and calling it rosy is a completely different act.

    Thus, compared to other models of life, humanity does indeed lose rational focus amid self-awareness. What is jealousy compared to the survival of a nation? What is nation compared to species?

    Think of your average business meeting. Reams of paper, overhead slides, hours of preparation gone into presenting some abstraction designed to make another abstraction abstractly abstract. (e.g. some device deigned to make moneymaking somehow easier.) Is this really the purpose and focus of the living endeavor? Nothing taking place in that meeting--recitation of sales figures, group synergy, the budding affair 'twixt John and Nancy, promotion politics, the product itself, demographics ... none of it is actually real except as we have decided through restricted objectivity. Entertainment lawyers? How about the guy who puts the "Inspected By" sticker on the router you just bought for the IT department?

    Longshoremen hold one of the oldest professions in the world, but the shipping and receiving of goods is hardly the oldest occupation on the book; prostitute, most likely, fills that role. It's a testament to the triumph of the primal (how one feels) over the self-aware (how one compares to another).

    Imagine two animals having a territorial fight: it's about sensory reality and life itself, not about whether the zebra copied the tiger's stripes, or vice-versa.

    Self-awareness and rationality: anyone here ever been in love? Anyone here ever felt love? Or how about, does anyone here know what love is?
    By this example, it seems the Edwardian, Victorian, and Puritan manias which have battered Western civilization are, in fact, the highest callings of human beings.

    But you're right. There is something at play that is quite akin to the social progression into adulthood. From Robert R McCammon's Boy's Life:
    However, what you've failed to describe in your example, is whether or not the offense against the child is properly offensive or not. After all, it seems the standards don't really change when you're an adult, but merely get reapplied.

    Don't understand what I'm talking about? It's simple.

    Find the most objective person you can. The most upstanding, adult, restrained and proper individual you can.

    And then f--k his wife.

    Make her scream your name in seven languages and then send him the videotapes with the note, "Wish you were here".

    Suddenly, lashing out is acceptable again. Sure, the law says no, but that's merely a convention of civility, a part of reality that we needn't pay attention to.

    Seriously ... love? Happiness? The most valuable things in life cannot be quantified.

    Formulaic interpretation of the subjective seems equally childish. It seems an attempt to invent and prefer an artificial something rather than the thing itself.

    It is only when you enter the most unnatural arena of controlled and limited factors in a situation that you start finding objective solutions that satisfy the known criteria.
    I don't think you'll find me arguing with that.
    Like I said, comparative.

    There is nothing inherently right or wrong.
    I believe I noted the condition, without sinking into irrationality

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . The point being that it cannot be done. The uniqueness of the human condition and its inherent value are entirely subjective.
    Umm ... Abraham.


    By "I am," I refer to the recognition of the self. To accept that the self exists is an empirical truth, but not one which can be transmitted. It is only at the most annoying end of religion that one finds any truth. The resolution that life is complex beyond understanding is tantamount to God being greater than that which can be imagined. The notion of "I am", the recognition of the self, is merely a conventional agreement. 'Tis true enough to say to the next fellow, I exist, and I figure you do, since we're having this conversation. Yet this is inadequate in a real sense while finding itself sufficient in the practical. From the practical perspective, there is nothing about our conversation constituting proof of our existence in order to participate. Yet when we touch the absolute, there is no way by which you can verify your experience in this discussion, and no way that I can verify mine. Those realities exist only inside the identified self.

    That is, we can relate as many details as we wish, but the nature of perception is such that each of us bears a unique recollection of the events. Thus, to agree that the event--e.g. the discussion--has taken place, what we are agreeing on is, in actuality, that an event has taken place which accords to certain criteria of recollection. The exact last detail of our recollections will forever be different.

    Thus, to verify existence becomes impossible in the real, and such comfort as can be taken from confirming existence is merely drawn from a reduction of reality, The practical compression of reality allows function well enough. But we should by no means imagine that the compression is a full-scale representation. Otherwise, you can get your car for a couple of bucks on the "Matchbox" aisle in the toystore. Scale adaptations of reality do not reality make.

    Functional, practical reality is constructed entirely of miniaturized substitutes for reality. At my most vicious, I would say that the scaling of reality people put themselves through on a daily bases reminds me in a macabre way of the time the Louisiana state assembly tried to change the definition of  to equal 3.0 because it was easier for the students in the schools.

    Practical objectivity is subject to the criteria according to which the individual classifies data received.

    The problem, in fact, is that there is no rationality outside mathematics or scientific inquiry. Every living function of such rationality is of subjective importance.

    thanx much,

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


Share This Page