quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

60 virgins promised to the suicide bombers.

Its 72 virgins,and they are actually houri, which are not the same thing at all really. Please Brain, try to get your facts at least close to correct.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

There is no way to assuredly know what constitutes the deity's good graces without a guess and a gamble.

quote:

hou⋅ri

–noun, plural -ris. one of the beautiful virgins provided in paradise for all faithful Muslims.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

Do you give your girl 'free will'?

the.dark.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanaYielding

No one has implied that there are no consequences of whatever choice is made. Free will might even take those consequences into account and choose to accept them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanaYielding

No one has implied that there are no consequences of whatever choice is made. Free will might even take those consequences into account and choose to accept them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

Do you give your girl 'free will'?

the.dark.

Entering into a relationship is inherently restrictive. some people like the restriction they choose...some people even like restrictions placed upon them (with or without consent).

Then again, the consequences of a bad relationship are not supposedly eternal torment.

Nor is the consequences of chosen not to be with god.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanaYielding

assuming facts not in evidence Nih. If the deity is omniscient then the discussion is mute.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

Nor is the consequences of chosen not to be with god.

People get so caught up in the whole fire and brimstone eternity - not once have I ever heard a christian, nor spoken to a christian who has offered that as a 'threat'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

The end of a relationship with this god?  Sure.  Seperation from him and all the goodies he can offer?  Ok.  But eternal torment?  Not so much - maybe in a more medieval period of history yeah - but not in todays market.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

Free will is nothing more than the compromises on any relationship.  It's consent - ya know - that groovy buzz word that is used so frequently around here.  In Ds and Ms terms - more understandable than other realtionships that exist.

the.dark.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

Sorry Treasure, only one of your links actually addressed the issues in the OP, and it didn’t do a very convincing job of reconciling the contradiction between what God commanded and what he is supposed to be like.

quote:

Feel free to google some more as there's a lot out there.

quote:

You realize that's like saying you've only interviewed painsluts as to whether single-tail lashing is a "threat"?

It's not a "threat" for them because they're on (presumably, to them) the "right side". It's just  very clearly scriptural threat to every human before that choice of subservience.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

The only people that perpetuate the fire and brimstone version of hell in my experience are atheistic in belief or have little knowledge such as most agnostics who play the Pascal wagers card.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

Right now, we have a bigger understanding of the way things were written than we did a hundred years ago.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

 We also have science at our disposal which allows us to not be influenced by medieval practices such as witch burnings and the concept that hell is made of fire.  We have televisual and internet capabilities that allow for clearer communication so that things can be looked at objectively and from many sides, rather than one biased on.  Non christians would do far better in moving on as many spiritual and christian in this case people have and stop perpetuating the myths that surround christian writings.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

I like to think that I am pretty objective when it comes to spiritual discussions - with a bias to loving the way they were written.  I don't believe that my bias for parables and myths taints my objectivity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

And as a - as I understand it - non christian, I sit here, time and again during discussions of christianity and of many other spiritual ideas including Islam, pagan wiccan etc... and all I see are people of non belief being the ones whom perpetuate the myths.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

Of course, that is their understanding of what they percieve to be written.  Or what sunday school taught.  Or mum and dad.  But every single time I see people professing that they know what god said and ridiculing a book that they haven't sat down or studied themselves.  Greek and hebrew words that are translated into KJV english which don't have translation.  So yes, the medieval thoughts that carried christianity for so long ARE wrong/

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

Christianity isn't a rape victim.  It's a person who accepts the edicts and ways of their chosen god.  Just like countless other religions.  Are there abuse victims, coerced into christianity - sure!  But no more than there are abuse victims living BDSM lifestyles out of coercion or lack of knowledge.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

There are christians, happily living gods life because it suits them.  Not out of fear of dying.  Or suffering eternal torment.  Just as their are people who think, well there may be a god, but I am going to face the consequences because gods way isn't my way.  That's not forced coercion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

That's knowing your limits.  Knowing and accepting the consequences.   It's RACK at a groovy level.  It's TPE at it's most in depth.

the.dark.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

Feel free to google some more as there's a lot out there.

I have, and I am sure I will in the future. So far I have not found any real answers to some pretty basic questions, like the ones raised by the OP, or in the other Christianity thread currently active on here. I have read some pretty impressive attempts,but most just end up dodging the question, or just explaining it away as "something beyond our ken".

quote:

In short, does a God (using the biblical definition of what God is) have to be good in order to be worshiped?

quote:

Certainly not anyone who, for instance, would be involved with or refer to the scriptures themselves?

http://bible.org/article/what-bible-says-about-hell

If such people choose to consider "knowledge" as something that is really a convenient, prettier adaptation of clear scriptural declaration, maybe they're not really obeying the intended word. Christians who take the "fable/allegory/symbolism" angle with select scriptures are just playing pick-and-choose with what is supposed to be the infallible word of their deity (kind of presumptuous, I would think).

But that is free will NZ.  Quote the scriptures all you like.  If ya don't get them, it aint gonna count, christian or not.  And if they have fucked up and their god (or peter or whoever the fuck is the chosen saint at the time) is at the pearly gates and goes - well actually - you fucked up bubye... then off the hell they go.  Or purgetory.  Or whatever it's called.(Please note that I am using myth in an ironic way).

quote:

This makes absolutely non biblical sense. 2 millenia of the "whisper-the-story-into-the-next-person's-ear" about word supposedly spoken directly from god to the bible book authors to write down do not makes for any logical suggestion of greater understanding.

The only way this argument could make any sense is if we wanted to treat the eternal 'word' as a mutable thing based on our geocultural mores and norms. and, surely an omniscient deity would have already taken such thing into account ahead of time when declaring his permanent rules...

I think we are talking different times NZ, which is where your confusion for what I am saying is laying.
When I say medieval, I mean just that.  Medieval.  Not when the scriptures where written, but when they were translated and beyond.  People take the KJV as gospel (yeah pun etc)... back in the 40s.... 20s... back in victorian times... back in the crusades... these times are very different to the understanding we have today.  Fire and brimstone was far more relevant back then, than it is in this current climate.  People understand the concept of metaphors far more when they have an understanding of science (IMO).

quote:

"Perpetuating myth" by refercing verbatim scriptural doctrine seems like an odd accusation to make of anyone. Science has nothing to do with it.

Not everything is a literal as it's translation nor the imagination of man.

quote:

Except that you are presuming to know which (if any) of the literal writings in the supposed word of the judep-christian deity are meant allegorically.

Not specifically.  I am saying that we don't 'know'.  And without the correct translations, all the scriptures and using your standard KJV - all you will get is 'don't knows'.  Hell could be fire and brimsone.  It could be like living in Somalia.  Or inside a volcano.  Or Iraq.  Or communist China.  Or living 24/7 with your motherinlaw in the same room.
Or it could just be me, existing in death without Master.  To me, that would be fire and brimstone.

quote:

As a former participant and student of a vast number of them, I don't see where I've perpetuated any myths or how it can be said that one thing is a myth and another is not.

I don't believe I was being specific to you personally and I apologise if it came across that way.  The only reason I responded to you in a debate like this is because I didn't desire a pointless debate, but one with substance.  You are one of the few non deist believers on here that are neither bigoted or close minded.  Hence I did not respond to the OP nor countless others. (Mr Arpig excluded because I believe him to be one of the few open minded people non deity peeps also - but I haven't anything relevant to debate with him ... yet :)   )

That said, I believe it is important that fire and brimstone not be thought of as an absolute in biblical terms.  Of course there those that believe in the literal translation.  There are those that hold to it being metaphorical.  But I do believe that treating it as the gospal of all christians disregards the different denominations of christianity and personal faith of many non denominational christians.

quote:

I'm pretty sure you just called the entire catholic faith "wrong".

And if I did and I go to hell for it - that's what free wills all digging about!

quote:

Except that every human is expected to abide by these sado-masochistic dynamics (or be punished). That's the equiveltn of saying that a pain-play dynamic must be introduced to everyone's life or that they should suffer torment for not abiding.

Not really.  End of the day... you believe in Jesus and are truely sorry for your own misunderstandings you don't get to hell.  It's not about following edicts and books the way someone else tells you.  It's about your understanding.
 
Look - using me as an example, if I get to meet Jesus at the gates(irony again) and say to him... I totally didn't dig the whole homosexual slant people kept telling me.  I read the bible.  I studied the translations.  I never once believed that homosexuality was 'wrong' and so I did not judge people on it.  Instead, I prayed and meditated on it and  because I am supposed to care about and love people - thats what I felt you tell me and because I believe in you I did your words - And Jesus goes - cool!  You're in.
If I'm wrong - I am pretty confident that Jesus would sit me down before that and tell me I am a prat.
But if I look at the bible and believe what people tell me was written and it just ends there and I do all my good deeds, help old ladies cross the road, no swearing, no sex etc -  then I would totally believe that homosexuality is in the NT as a sin and was written in the original words and I tell Jesus I judged people on that and he goes - but do you believe in me and my words - not what other people tell you and I say... they are your words and he goes... it's not really what I wrote and if you really believed in me you would have made the effort to find that out by having a personal relationship with me...
 
That example is not what is in my heart but what someone else said I was supposed to do - not my truth in accordance with Jesus and the relationship I have with him.  As tasteless as it is for some people to swallow, if someone killed and tortured another and is remorseful and didn't understand the magnitude of it until their final moments and then begged forgiveness - Jesus lets them in.  What he doesn't let in is the pious non sinner who thinks they get into heaven for being a good human.
That's christianity *jazz hands*.

quote:

Of course it is! Only in the case you are describing, it is coercion that has been consented to. I thoroughly support people do choose any dynamic for themselves and have made comments relating to religions and spirituality on here that have shown this.

I'll mull that over.

quote:

One person's abusive partner is another's wonderful sadist. People are free to choose whatever they like.

My issue is that the deity that commands everything (in this mythology) is putting that demand forward and doing it while simultaneously creating the individual.

I can see your POV.  But then - and I do seem to be in a minority here - I don't view him/her/it as some entity we can't question nor learn to understand.  I don't see this 'christian' god as unapproachable.

quote:

Yes, it is. And we should know better than most that TPE isn't for everyone and that it's downright abusive to expect some to incorporate it into their lives when it's not what they want.

And that's the beauty of it.  You don't have to.
 
the.dark.

_____________________________

RC&dc

love isnt gazing into each others eyes - it's looking forward in the same direction

(in reply to NihilusZero)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen

TreasureKY,

I only read your last link. So this post is in reference to that particular link.

The essay goes great lengths to not actually answer the question put forth. At least that's how I experienced the essay. The essay does not address the sudden disappearance of Sodom and Gomorrah or His actual wrath as it pertains to the Egyptian Pharaoh or His reaction/actions in reference to Adam and Eve and their sons (all sons...generations on and on). There is wrath in the sense of anger and hurtful action. Exiling Adam and Eve from paradise on Earth was hurtful and purposeful and not a "natural and logical consequence" as the author of the essay tries to point out. (For those who didn't read, the author referenced the 10 commandments as set of rules to live by in which God does not say "I'll kill you if you don't do these things", rather "your live will be easier if you follow these rules because of the natural and logical consequences that come with violating these rules".)

God is all knowing according to the essay. God KNEW Adam was going to eat the apple. God KNEW Eve would be tempted and would cave. If God was a just God (literal interpretation here) why would He even leave the issue of the tree of knowledge? Why leave these things to tempt His "children"? Leave them free will, no problem, but why set them up? It's like leaving a hot pan on the ground next to a toddler and telling the toddler not to touch it cuz it will burn them. It's setting that child up for failure. It's neglect at best and malicious action at worst. And it's incredibly painful spiritually for anyone to struggle with this kind of concept of the God they worship.

Not only does this interpretation of God leaving us to "our own devices" fuck us up a little. We're then told, that while we may not get it so bad in this life as a consequence of poor choices, we'll get an eternity of shit storms for it. That's a pretty crappy hand. Now, while I agree with most of the 10 commandments and think they're great guidelines to live by, these are not the only rules we're left with. God's rules don't stop there, if one actually finishes reading the bible. More rules come, they're just not spelled out on a rule sheet like the commandments.

And, finally, I want to point out something that really tweaked my butt...

"PLEASE NOTE: Satan CANNOT do anything that God does not specifically allow!"
I don't get it. I just don't get this statement. According to the essay, Satan is the root of our fuck ups. It's not really us, it's Satan, because Satan manipulates us. By following the above statement from the author, I'm lead to believe that Satan is not "evil" rather is simply a tool God uses so that He can play favorites with us. It just sucks. I can't get past this statement. I really can't. If this can be explained to me in a way the exemplifies the "Loving God" of Christianity, then please do explain it to me, for now the author of the final essay only made a really bad case for literal interpretation and the general acceptance of what Christianity is.
boi

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW

quote:

However, if it's that or an eternity of infinite fucking torment, it seems that pragmatism weighs one pretty heavily towards cowing and saying "Yes massah, doan' beat po' slave!", doesn't it?

You know, I -so- wasn't going to tap in on this match, but I -have- to say that if this is the _only_ reason a person has to choose to believe in a god, then it seems like the typical 'carrot-stick' logic... and I'd much rather be true to myself and opt out of the whole paradigm and go get a mango.

DC