I'm sure that if you decide to "insult" me, you'd do quite well..........in your opinion.
Of course, from my perspective, that might still be quite lacking.
Originally Posted by Huntster
I told no biological beings, except Mrs. Huntster and y'all (who don't know me from Adam). I haven't even shared it in a confessional.
The state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives
But, life being what it is, there will be parts I enjoy and parts I don’t. I work hard at maximizing the former and accepting the latter. I’m guessing you do the same.
The only real difference is I don’t spend any time guessing as to what will maximize my enjoyment in some hypothetical afterlife designed by a God whose ways are mysterious and unfathomable.
I don't spend any time at all guessing (or even thinking/contemplating/reckoning/etc) what will maximize my enjoyment in any possible afterlife (designed by God or not).
I haven't got enough time to do so.
Originally Posted by Huntster
I don't. I haven't even got mine.
But I've tried to make some reservations. I haven't gotten confirmation yet, but I've got faith...
Beware the eternal layover. You may not go anywhere. It’s all stand-by.
Originally Posted by Huntster
What is there to be afraid of?
To hear many Christians, there is fear of hell. You allude to it too.
Originally Posted by Huntster
With faith, fear is defeated.
With atheism, there is no fear that needs to be defeated. I like it better that way.
The alternative isn't necessarily "punishment" as it is a consequence.
I'm not saying fear of punishment isn't a useful tool. It is a lot of what our legal system is based on. Heck, it is a lot of what our morality is based on. But it is still a tool for obedience. It is not evidence of God. It is evidence of a need for morality in social contracts. When there are no police, use God as an enforcer.
I don't need "police." While I respect them greatly, I don't need them.
Nor do I need God as an "enforcer." If you see Him as such, I'm afraid you're missing the point.
But, then, I already knew that...............
Originally Posted by Darth Rotor
Disclaimer: Since I didn't grow up with all of that, I entered with the perception that Hell is the condition of "not with God."
How do you see that as fit now, then "punishment" later?
Not too long ago, we had a poster who argued that "The Matrix" was an accurate description of reality. Why is his concept of reality any worse than Christianity?
In this context, it means almost the same thing. The difference is, with discipline, you are expected to do better. Unless you believe in reincarnation, then post-life discipline is a useless concept.
The concept of post-death “discipline” has one main reason: To make you fear it.
Exactly what I’ve been saying. Sometimes you deny that your religion used fear as a motivator, now you admit it. This is just another of the many examples where you contradict yourself.
You rename it “discipline”. You rename it “consequence”. Your semantic objections are puny. It is punishment pure and simple. It’s “You’re being sent to your room without God, young man.” You can’t possibly make a case that this is not punishment. And you’ve already admitted you fear it.
Perhaps in your situation, you don’t, although I suspect that you don’t appreciate the things that they do to prevent you from needing to call them. Is it rampant lawlessness where you live? If not, then maybe you have police to thank in part.
Then what do you need God for at all? Why is important to you that there be “discipline” or “consequence” or whatever you’re calling “punishment” these days? Would it be fine with you if sinners, atheists and heretics go straight to heaven? Do you agree with God’s reasons for “disciplining” them? If so, then you do need an enforcer. No, not for Godly people like you, but to keep the riff-raff out.
LOL. I seriously hope you are not judging the accuracy of a religion by its longevity. If so, then I’m afraid Christianity is not among the most correct.
Originally Posted by Huntster
By confessing to an ordained priest, one goes to the extreme. Just like when one "confesses" to a mental health specialist.
The state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives
Perhaps in your situation, you don’t, although I suspect that you don’t appreciate the things that they do to prevent you from needing to call them. Is it rampant lawlessness where you live?
LOL. I seriously hope you are not judging the accuracy of a religion by its longevity. If so, then I’m afraid Christianity is not among the most correct.
Nope. Sometimes you are forced to go by the court, usually when you've committed a crime or are deemed mentally unsound. You still want to make therapy an analogy to confession?
Yet even though you say that, you have contradicted yourself. But if you want to play semantic games, I'll concede you can call it "inconsistant" rather than "wrong".
I've read it every time you've said it to me and even if that is true, it is irrelevant. When a criminal commits a crime, he does so by his own free choice. If he is caught though, he is punished by the law. He is not punished by himself. The law rules that what he did was a crime so it is the law that punishes him. The law is there to make you fear punishment.
Same with the hell you describe. You've admitted that exclusion is a thing to be... um... disliked. But according to Christians, God makes the rules for who gets excluded, so God is the one doing the punishing, even if the choice to violate the "rules" is a free-will decision. God is there to make you fear punishment.
Really, Huntster, it's sort of pointless to argue this. Every society has moral codes that must be enforced with punishment if broken. If you haven't got any real people to enforce them, what's the next best thing?
I didn't ask if it was up to you, I asked if you were okay with it. So let me ask in simple words so that we can avoid another semantic digression: Do you think heaven should be a place (spiritual or otherwise) where everybody gets in no matter what they believe and no matter what they've done?
Yes you do. It's the (according to some, 'God-given') thing called "free will", remember? Even if you can't change it, you can still approve or disapprove.
If not, you should have no problem walking across a lawn covered with it blindfolded, right?
Why are you so determined to make me afraid of God?
I suppose, if I must, I can pose that analogy with Mrs. Huntster. She's just a itty-bitty thing. And she's a little sweetie-pie. At 260 lbs, I'm not much afraid of her.
But wait!........... There have been a couple of times when she was absolutely furious with me, and I was afraid.
But I love her and she loves me. The fear was momentary. It was more surprise than fear.
And I do "fear" the thought that someday she might die before I do, and I'd have to live without her.
Does that mean I'm afraid of her?
As you say, biological death cannot be prevented, so there is no use fearing it. Why should spiritual death be different?
Nope. Sometimes you are forced to go by the court, usually when you've committed a crime or are deemed mentally unsound. You still want to make therapy an analogy to confession?
Correct. And you're the one trying to make it into punishment.
Originally Posted by Huntster
Who's avoiding the truth here?:
The state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives
I've posted that definition dozens and dozens of times. Read it:
"Self-exclusion." "...by their own free choice..."
I've read it every time you've said it to me and even if that is true, it is irrelevant. When a criminal commits a crime, he does so by his own free choice. If he is caught though, he is punished by the law.
Unfortunately, that is the attitude of many, including those in the system.
The criminal should be paying society back for his transgression, not punished. If he continues to fail to live up to society's rules, he is incarcerated to protect society, not punish him.
He is not punished by himself. The law rules that what he did was a crime so it is the law that punishes him. The law is there to make you fear punishment.
But according to Christians, God makes the rules for who gets excluded, so God is the one doing the punishing, even if the choice to violate the "rules" is a free-will decision.
When petty crime occurs around here, I can't go down to the criminal's house and deal with him as I think best. I have to call the police.
They don't even show up, let alone deal with the situation. But I have to call them.
In one case, I had a neighbor who wouldn't contain his dog. I called the authorities a few time. No response. So then I sent them a certified letter. Again, no response. After one more courtousy call, when the dog showed up again, I shot him, threw him in the back of the truck, and hauled him to the dump.
Problem solved. And I didn't "punish" the dog or my neighbor, but there were "consequences" for not following the rules.
I followed the rules. If my neighbor had caught me killing his dog and reported me, I would have been perfectly delighted to appear in front of the black robe with the copy of my certified letter and testimony. Not to punish animal control, but so that they would be "affected" by the "consequences."
Originally Posted by Huntster
For the same reason why I need my wife, children, parents, siblings, friends, etc.:
So let me ask in simple words so that we can avoid another semantic digression: Do you think heaven should be a place (spiritual or otherwise) where everybody gets in no matter what they believe and no matter what they've done?
Eternal life with God; communion of life and love with the Trinity and all the blessed. Heaven is the state of supreme and definitive happiness, the goal of the deepest longings of humanity
Yes you do. It's the (according to some, 'God-given') thing called "free will", remember? Even if you can't change it, you can still approve or disapprove.
But according to Christians, God makes the rules for who gets excluded, so God is the one doing the punishing, even if the choice to violate the "rules" is a free-will decision.
The Amish
The Brethren
Children of God
Christadelphians
Christian Science
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons)
Community of Christ: Formerly the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints:
Eastern Orthodox churches
The Family
Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Polygynists in Bountiful, British Columbia, Canada
The Brethren
Gnosticism
Jehovah's Witnesses
Messianic Judaism & "Jews for Jesus"
Mormons (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)
Orthodox churches
The Process
Progressive Christianity
Quakers (Society of Friends)
Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: Now called the Community of Christ
Roman Catholic Church
Seventh-Day Adventist Church
Society of Friends (Quakers)
Two by Twos ("The Jesus Way", "The Church with no Name", etc)
Unification Church
United Pentecostal Church International
Unity Church in Canada
Unity School of Christianity
Urantia Book
Worldwide Church of God
The Way International
Because I have an education in Christianity and experience with people who hate God.
Are you referring to religious from the personal perspective, or the organizational perspective? The priest is the mentor, and spiritual guide. And confession, the method, is cathartic.
BS BS BS!!!!! Not being with God is a punishment. It is to be feared. If it wasn't to be feared, why would you even care about being without God?
My, aren't we dwelling on the negative here. If you have never been with God, I don't see it as punishment at all. It is just a continuation of your state of being. Once you have been with God, to be without Him is something you'll sense and know, or being apart from Him. I'll use the coarse physical analogy of sex. If you've had sex, not being able to have it again is colored very much with the knowing (yes, a pun), whereas for a virgin it's mostly apprehension and anticipation, or obliviousness.
Maybe a better analogy, more to your taste, would be smoking. If you have never smoked, you don't know what it is to miss cigarettes. Once a smoker, and then going without them, you know what missing them is.
Stick=fear of punishment. This is my point. Christianity is all about fear of punishment.
I respectfully disagree, and suggest you are looking only at a half empty glass, if all you can find in Christianity is fear and punishment. That is all you are looking for. You completely ignore the positive, the core of which is self sacrifice, and treating one's neighbor as one's self: the cornerstone of its morality.
I'm not saying fear of punishment isn't a useful tool. It is a lot of what our legal system is based on. Heck, it is a lot of what our morality is based on. But it is still a tool for obedience.
When there are not police, use moral framework as a guide. As you can tell from human behavior, it doesn't always work, and absent a moral sense, integrity tends to be absent, and selfishness, the activity of that dear old selfish gene, tends to be paramount. This is the converse of selflessness, the Christian moral standard that pretty much every sect agrees upon.
As I say, that is still punishment. Unless your perception is that "not with God" is perfectly okay.
Not too long ago, we had a poster who argued that "The Matrix" was an accurate description of reality. Why is his concept of reality any worse than Christianity? It had many of the same elements and exactly the same amount of evidence.
So, you'll bring out a CT of the clock work, machine world flavor as a supporting argument? I guess I'd have to read his posts to understand what you are getting at. I saw the Matrix as a delightful allegorical tale, though the two sequels sucked ass. The ultimate plot pun of Deus ex Machina, or maybe it was Deus in Machina, was a big dissapointment to me.
Oh pleasessssss, I have run out of numbers for the times that I have heard children being threaten with going to hell, by their parents, if they were not being good. I was watching TV last night about comets etc and back before they knew what comets where the church loved to use them as omens of things to come if the people didn’t get their act together. The church was mad at Ben Franklin because of the lightening rod, now the so-called wrath of god was tamed. Time and time again being told that if you don't believe that Jesus was you so-called lord and savior you will go to hell. When all else fails they turn to fear tactics.
When there are not police, use moral framework as a guide. As you can tell from human behavior, it doesn't always work, and absent a moral sense, integrity tends to be absent, and selfishness, the activity of that dear old selfish gene, tends to be paramount. This is the converse of selflessness, the Christian moral standard that pretty much every sect agrees upon.
Aside from the fact that atheists can have a moral sense which allows selflessness (not sure if you're implying they can't), this makes an assumption that the christian--knowing both that such behavior will end in reward and that the opposite behavior will end in misery--acts as if he does not know of the promised reward and punishment.
If true selflessness is an indication of morality and if such an indication is a/the prime factor in obtaining entrance into god's presence upon death, then the only way to separate the truly selfless from those who act selflessly out of fear of punishment or desire for reward, is to keep them ignorant of both.
If I have never heard of Jesus, God, the Holy Spirit, Heaven, or Hell, and yet I still act selflessly, God can truly know that I am selfless and therefore worthy of reward.
If the counterargument to this is that God will know anyway, then it seems there is no point to the process at all. God will know before we are created what sort of person we are. Certainly he will know when we are conceived. At least he will know when we are born. Or does he not know after all?
No, not implying that, though where the secular moral baseline comes from, and what informs it, is a fascinating discussion for another thread.
this makes an assumption that the christian--knowing both that such behavior will end in reward and that the opposite behavior will end in misery--acts as if he does not know of the promised reward and punishment.
If true selflessness is an indication of morality and if such an indication is a/the prime factor in obtaining entrance into god's presence upon death, then the only way to separate the truly selfless from those who act selflessly out of fear of punishment or desire for reward, is to keep them ignorant of both.
Why "true selflessness?" Are you requiring a standard of perfection to human activity?
If I have never heard of Jesus, God, the Holy Spirit, Heaven, or Hell, and yet I still act selflessly, God can truly know that I am selfless and therefore worthy of reward.
This recalls a few centuries of argument on works versus faith. I am not content that the argument is settled.
If the counterargument to this is that God will know anyway, then it seems there is no point to the process at all. God will know before we are created what sort of person we are. Certainly he will know when we are conceived. At least he will know when we are born. Or does he not know after all?
The question, I think, is more clearly put "if the News has not got to you, is it your fault?" I have faith in God's mercy on that score. One could well argue that the fault is in the failure of the Evangelicals, or the Church (with Church being the people of Faith in its broadest sense, not any single denomination) failing to effectively get the word out. In that case, my choice not to prostletyze on the internet may be putting me onto the sh** list.
If the sales pitch, as it were, continually emphasizes the negative -- see the standard revivalist fire and brimstone sermon for the model -- that would border on 'bearing false witness' by not selling the whole package. The old "misrepresentation by not telling the whole story" tactic.
Oh pleasessssss, I have run out of numbers for the times that I have heard children being threaten with going to hell, by their parents, if they were not being good. I was watching TV last night about comets etc and back before they knew what comets where the church loved to use them as omens of things to come if the people didn’t get their act together. The church was mad at Ben Franklin because of the lightening rod, now the so-called wrath of god was tamed. Time and time again being told that if you don't believe that Jesus was you so-called lord and savior you will go to hell. When all else fails they turn to fear tactics.
I think that term is too nebulous in some instances and too specific in others to be of use here. I think "acts selfishly" as opposed to "acts selflessly" works.
Darth Rotor said:
Why "true selflessness?" Are you requiring a standard of perfection to human activity?
Never have. I'm trying to get at motivations. Two people may perform exactly the same act in exactly the same circumstances, and even have the exactly the same proximate motivation yet have completely opposite ultimate motivations.
Extreme example:
We are standing next to each other on the subway platform with the train fast approaching. Two children fall on the tracks. We each determine, independently and silently, that the only way to save the children is to sacrifice ourselves by diving on the tracks and pushing them out of the way, but we realize we can each reach only one; to save both requires the action of both of us.
You dive onto the tracks to save the child, not knowing what follows death, if anything, thereby dying selflessly and heroically.
I dive onto the tracks to save the child, thereby dying selflessly and heroically but I happen to believe I will awake in heaven. Perhaps I would have sacrificed myself even without such a belief, but who knows?
Darth Rotor said:
This recalls a few centuries of argument on works versus faith. I am not content that the argument is settled.
It is partly works-vs-faith, which I don't care to get into. The part I do care about here is not what happens to those who never heard the word but instead why anyone at all has heard the word.
Aside from demonstrating a completely unfounded prejudice on god's part in choosing one people over another and punishing the unchosen for being unchosen, it raises the issue of whether ultimately selfless motivation can ever be determined. The people who reach heaven may simply be the most skilled sychopants.
And, though, I said I don't care to get into it, it seems the fact that there is a Word at least partially answers the works-vs-faith question: If it were only works, revelation of something in which to have faith would be irrelevant. Were I still christian, I would tend to lean toward the side which says that both are necessary but neither is sufficient and that works must follow faith as much as the life remaining after faith is acquired allows.
Darth Rotor said:
The question, I think, is more clearly put "if the News has not got to you, is it your fault?" I have faith in God's mercy on that score.
One could well argue that the fault is in the failure of the Evangelicals, or the Church (with Church being the people of Faith in its broadest sense, not any single denomination) failing to effectively get the word out. In that case, my choice not to prostletyze on the internet may be putting me onto the sh** list.
If the sales pitch, as it were, continually emphasizes the negative -- see the standard revivalist fire and brimstone sermon for the model -- that would border on 'bearing false witness' by not selling the whole package. The old "misrepresentation by not telling the whole story" tactic.
Aside from demonstrating a completely unfounded prejudice on god's part in choosing one people over another and punishing the unchosen for being unchosen, it raises the issue of whether ultimately selfless motivation can ever be determined. The people who reach heaven may simply be the most skilled sychopants.
And, though, I said I don't care to get into it, it seems the fact that there is a Word at least partially answers the works-vs-faith question: If it were only works, revelation of something in which to have faith would be irrelevant. Were I still christian, I would tend to lean toward the side which says that both are necessary but neither is sufficient and that works must follow faith as much as the life remaining after faith is acquired allows.[/quote]
I don't see how the two can be separated, except as an academic exercise.
Agreed, but it does not address my "ultimate motivation" question.
Are you referring to religious from the personal perspective, or the organizational perspective? The priest is the mentor, and spiritual guide. And confession, the method, is cathartic.
Can the spiritual guide take you on a vision quest? Don’t be silly, Darth, the priest is there to guide you in a specific religion (Catholicism), including assigning specific religion-mandated punishments, usually guilt trips. But my point was that according to the RCC if you don’t go to confession, it is a sin. Unrepentant sin is punished by God.
As I’ve said many times before, it is positive and negative. Carrot and stick. If it seems that I am dwelling on the negative, it is because I am trying to get Huntster, and maybe you, to at least acknowledge the negative. He doesn’t seem to want to. How about you?
Well, I was Christian for a time. I thought I was with God and I was told I was with God. Is this one of these things that becomes “true” once you start believing it? Nevertheless, discontinuation of your state of being is still punishment, just as much as discontinuation of telephone privileges is a punishment sometimes meted out by parents.
Once you have been with God, to be without Him is something you'll sense and know, or being apart from Him. I'll use the coarse physical analogy of sex. If you've had sex, not being able to have it again is colored very much with the knowing (yes, a pun), whereas for a virgin it's mostly apprehension and anticipation, or obliviousness.
Well, I’ve been a virgin (in the distant past) and I’ve had sex and I’d say that even as a virgin, I had a pretty good idea of what sex was like. Turns out, I was right on many counts. I’ve also been celibate for long periods of time in my life, and while maybe not the most preferred state of being, it was still a very good time of my life.
Similarly, I’ve been with God and I’ve been without God, and frankly, without God is much better. (Note: Here is where someone is supposed to tell me I wasn’t really with God.) So if you’re telling me that the afterlife is there for everybody and it is just the same for everybody except for the presence or absence of God, then I agree that what some call “Hell-being-the-absence-of-God” is not punishment. It is reward. Somehow, though, I don’t think that’s what you mean.
Maybe a better analogy, more to your taste, would be smoking. If you have never smoked, you don't know what it is to miss cigarettes. Once a smoker, and then going without them, you know what missing them is.
I don’t smoke, but most of the rest of my family does. But I get a pretty good idea what it is like, not only through description, but also because I have my own addictions. But all you are really saying is that I can’t actually feel the experiences of another. Well, that’s pretty obvious. One smoker-on-the-wagon doesn’t know exactly what another smoker-on-the-wagon feels like either. Obviously, the closer the experiences, the more empathy.
If you have never been a Christian-turned-atheist you cannot possibly know what is like to experience the feeling, right? Bushwah! You can imagine it. Sure, you won’t know my feelings, but then, that’s impossible for anybody but me. So even if you’re correct that I don’t know what it’s like to be apart from God after being with Him, I can get a pretty good idea from the descriptions of others.
But perhaps you might want to abandon this comparison of God to an addictive substance. I might extend the analogy.
I respectfully disagree, and suggest you are looking only at a half empty glass, if all you can find in Christianity is fear and punishment. That is all you are looking for. You completely ignore the positive, the core of which is self sacrifice, and treating one's neighbor as one's self: the cornerstone of its morality.
I acknowledge that Christianity includes those things, sometimes. Other times it does not. But those values are available to all with or without the religious baggage. And at its core, what is the purpose of God in a religion? He’s the one in control. He’s the one who judges. He’s the one who decides reward and punishment.
I am seeing the whole glass, but I am acknowledging there is a top half and a bottom half. Yes, of course there is carrot. I acknowledge that. There is also stick. Do you acknowledge that?
When there are not police, use moral framework as a guide. As you can tell from human behavior, it doesn't always work, and absent a moral sense, integrity tends to be absent, and selfishness, the activity of that dear old selfish gene, tends to be paramount. This is the converse of selflessness, the Christian moral standard that pretty much every sect agrees upon.
Any codified moral framework must provide a reason for others to accept that framework. If you are going to function in a society with a codified moral framework, you cannot violate the rules of that framework. If you do, there must be negative consequences. I’m not saying Christianity or Religion is alone in requiring this. I’m saying, don’t deny it is there.
I have plenty of good reasons to abide by the moral framework of our society. I’m basically an empathetic, loving person who hates violence. A society which has the same moral values as me gives me the freedom to be that way. That’s the carrot. I’m also tempted to violate the rules of that society in small ways from time to time. I’d like to throw a pie into the face of President Bush, for example. But I do not even try to do so because I don’t think it’s worth the punishment. That’s the stick.
I respond to both carrot and stick. I know they exist and I have seen them in action.
But what are the “carrot” and “stick” of Christianity? Don’t say morality, because that is available without religion. You know the answer; Heaven and Hell, however you describe them. I don’t know they exist and I have never seen them in action. All I see is promise of carrot and threat of stick.
Hogwash. Either it is not punishment at all (as in “nothing is any different except you don’t get to hobnob with God”) or it is somehow worse. I would never flagellate myself willfully, and if I saw (after I was dead) that Heaven was better than hell, I’d go there. What? I can’t? Just because of past actions or beliefs? Sorry, Darth, that’s punishment and I am not doing it myself, because I would let myself in.
So, you'll bring out a CT of the clock work, machine world flavor as a supporting argument? I guess I'd have to read his posts to understand what you are getting at. I saw the Matrix as a delightful allegorical tale, though the two sequels sucked ass. The ultimate plot pun of Deus ex Machina, or maybe it was Deus in Machina, was a big disappointment to me.
He wasn’t a CT-er. He just had a rather unorthodox religion. But the idea of us all being CGIs in a program designed by God is not any less fantastic than Christianity.
Frankly, I thought the first movie was vastly overrated and deeply flawed (Too much Deus ex Machina). I never watched the sequels.
Hogwash. Either it is not punishment at all (as in “nothing is any different except you don’t get to hobnob with God”) or it is somehow worse. I would never flagellate myself willfully, and if I saw (after I was dead) that Heaven was better than hell, I’d go there. What? I can’t? Just because of past actions or beliefs? Sorry, Darth. That’s punishment.
And I see the possibility of being thrown into prison and becoming some mobster's girlfriend for attempting to break through his Secret Service guard and throw a pie in the face of Dubya. But I don't dwell on it.
This is similar to the Huntster argument, "I don't fear it because it ain't gonna happen to me."
Well, I miss out on a few pop-culture references, which may someday cost me on Jeopardy, but somehow, I muddle through.
BTW, I know it's time consuming, but I hope at some point you have time to reply to the main body of my previous post. I know your adoring fans are all demanding your time though.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
