Endless Punishment, Fundie style

[Slowvehicle]

Dear Frozenwolf,

Are you the same person who believes that certain things in the Universe, including the Universe itself (i.e. everything), “just happen” for no reason? And you call yourself a rationalist?

As to the death of religion, I think hatred of parents, including especially of the father, has a lot to do with it.

Cpl Ferro

Fero, miele nostro:

Why do you set up the false dichotomy between "goddidit, and I will feel, act, believe, and be as it commands me" and "everything is chaos that 'just happened' ", as if those were the only options?

Perhaps you might defend this unfortunate error by demonstrating anyone here who has claimed that "things 'just happen' ".

Might I ask, just in passing, carissimo, where you got your credentials in psychology? Your analysis of the "death of religion" seems just a bit...facile (not to mention, subjectively, and anecdotally, at least, demonstrably untrue).

 

[CplFerro]

An odd way of saying it.
Would God make you be happy?
How do you feel about it now, before He requires you to be happy?

I think happiness would be ineluctable, Giordano. The Beatific Vision and all.

Right now, I am of mixed feelings about it.

Cpl Ferro

 

[CplFerro]

Ferro, my asking you to cut the insincere dear is not the same as resigning from conversation. I'm not alone in feeling it was off. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I had to say something.

Donn,

Do you, too, deny the Principle of Sufficient Reason? I forget. If you do, there is nigh nil to be gained by our continued intercourse.

Cpl Ferro

 

[Slowvehicle]

I think happiness would be ineluctable, Giordano. The Beatific Vision and all.

Right now, I am of mixed feelings about it.

Cpl Ferro

Dearest Fero, our bridge between hapinesses over the sloughs of daily despond:

You are of "mixed feelings" about the idea that some people might, in fact, not spend eternity being tortured by your 'god' for not letting it "save" them from what it will do to them if they do not let it "save" them?

Really?

What do you see as the downside of discovering that 'god' is not the praise-hungry, murderous, inconsistent, notional, tantrum-throwing vengeful spoiled brat the Old Testament portrays it as?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Donn,

Do you, too, deny the Principle of Sufficient Reason? I forget. If you do, there is nigh nil to be gained by our continued intercourse.

Cpl Ferro

Ferro Dear:

Do you deny that the "Principle of Sufficient Reason" would, if it applied to anything, also apply to 'god', and thus, inevitably result in inescapable infinite regress?

Or does your approach depend upon special pleading?

 

[Giordano]

I think happiness would be ineluctable, Giordano. The Beatific Vision and all.

Right now, I am of mixed feelings about it.

Cpl Ferro

So my proposal is correct that part of the value of getting into heaven relies on the concept that not everyone does?

 

[bruto]

The idea, as best I understand it, tsig, is that a created entity can be admitted to Heaven only after being tested in some way, and transformed after that test into a thing that will have sufficient spiritual inertia to carry it to eternity, so that it will never want to do ill, or, if in Hell, it will never want to do good.

Cpl Ferro

Doesn't that make hell a heaven for wrongdoers? What's the point of a hell you don't want to get out of?

 

[Giordano]

The idea, as best I understand it, tsig, is that a created entity can be admitted to Heaven only after being tested in some way, and transformed after that test into a thing that will have sufficient spiritual inertia to carry it to eternity, so that it will never want to do ill, or, if in Hell, it will never want to do good.

Cpl Ferro

What if we all pass "the test" and have enough spiritual inertia that we will all be carried to heaven. Why does that give you mixed feelings when you consider the possibility now? Isn't it only wonderful?

 

[Donn]

Donn,

Do you, too, deny the Principle of Sufficient Reason?

My honest reply is that I do not know enough to state whether causes precede everything or not.

My question to you in the past has been — even if I concede a god that caused the first cascade of stuff that became the Universe (and only that initial cause), can you show evidence that that distant god is the one you share a relationship with right here and now?

You see other arguments exist: If the Principle stands, what of infinite regress? Too, the Principle may be wrong by way of physics that I have no way of comprehending.

I don't mind saying: I don't know. You don't mind saying you do know. I state that you actually don't, you just convince yourself that you do, (and by extension, try to convince others that you do.)

So, leave that distant, murky god out of it. What have you got for the one that you claim is real, right now?


PS: Thanks for the new greeting, I much prefer it.

 

[CplFerro]

So my proposal is correct that part of the value of getting into heaven relies on the concept that not everyone does?

Dear Giordano.

Did I ever say that? No, I don't think I did.

Cpl Ferro

 

[CplFerro]

Doesn't that make hell a heaven for wrongdoers? What's the point of a hell you don't want to get out of?

Not wanting to do good is not the same as enjoying yourself, bruto.

Cpl Ferro

 

[CplFerro]

What if we all pass "the test" and have enough spiritual inertia that we will all be carried to heaven. Why does that give you mixed feelings when you consider the possibility now? Isn't it only wonderful?

I have mixed feelings about the desirability of Heaven, Giordano.

Cpl Ferro

 

[CplFerro]

My honest reply is that I do not know enough to state whether causes precede everything or not.

My question to you in the past has been — even if I concede a god that caused the first cascade of stuff that became the Universe (and only that initial cause), can you show evidence that that distant god is the one you share a relationship with right here and now?

You see other arguments exist: If the Principle stands, what of infinite regress? Too, the Principle may be wrong by way of physics that I have no way of comprehending.

I don't mind saying: I don't know. You don't mind saying you do know. I state that you actually don't, you just convince yourself that you do, (and by extension, try to convince others that you do.)

So, leave that distant, murky god out of it. What have you got for the one that you claim is real, right now?


PS: Thanks for the new greeting, I much prefer it.

Donn,

I don't know why you think I'm being any more sincere or any less insulting with this greeting than with the other. If you think I'm being insincere and insulting, you should simply stop communicating with me. Perhaps I was stupid and lacking in integrity in changing my greeting for you.

If you're interested in Christianity's evidential foundation I recommend The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, and the chapter 13 (The Reality of the Resurrection) of The Reason for God by Timothy Keller. Basically, it doesn't make sense that the Resurrection was faked.

If you're interested in the Old Testament, consider this video:

Rational Approach to the Divine Origin of Judaism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEg_Oys4NkA

I've perceived it and don't quite understand it. Perhaps you will have better luck.

But, all of this depends on you throwing away your "I don't know if things need reasons" card, which can trump anything anyone says that you aren't comfortable with.

Cpl Ferro

 

[abaddon]

Dear Giordano.

Did I ever say that? No, I don't think I did.

Cpl Ferro

Yes you did. All you are doing is appealing to plausible deniability now.

I have mixed feelings about the desirability of Heaven, Giordano.

Cpl Ferro

Expand on that. You claim that it is the pinnacle of humanity yet simultaneously claim you do not like it much.

Donn,

I don't know why you think I'm being any more sincere or any less insulting with this greeting than with the other. If you think I'm being insincere and insulting, you should simply stop communicating with me. Perhaps I was stupid and lacking in integrity in changing my greeting for you.

If you're interested in Christianity's evidential foundation I recommend The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, and the chapter 13 (The Reality of the Resurrection) of The Reason for God by Timothy Keller. Basically, it doesn't make sense that the Resurrection was faked.

If you're interested in the Old Testament, consider this video:

Rational Approach to the Divine Origin of Judaism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEg_Oys4NkA

I've perceived it and don't quite understand it. Perhaps you will have better luck.

But, all of this depends on you throwing away your "I don't know if things need reasons" card, which can trump anything anyone says that you aren't comfortable with.

Cpl Ferro

Bluntly, it is patronising superiority complex. It somehow pleases you to do that. Personally, I prefer to take the default position that anyone else's position is as valid as mine. You appear to take a condescending position that everyone is inferior to you. Please stop.

 

[Toontown]

What if we all pass "the test" and have enough spiritual inertia that we will all be carried to heaven. Why does that give you mixed feelings when you consider the possibility now? Isn't it only wonderful?

It wasn't "only wonderful" for Jesus. He had plenty of "spiritual inertia", and he still had to spend 33 years in a miserable hellhole before being flogged and nailed to a cross.

And that's only what we know about. Eternity is a long time. There's no telling what other tortures Old Jehovah has inflicted on the boy, all justified in much the same non-sequitur manner.

How many other sinful races are scattered about the universe, all needing forgiveness for their sins, which can only be given if someone else pays for them in some gruesome, agonizing manner?

It is a grim game Old Jehovah has dragged all of us into.

 

[turingtest]

So my proposal is correct that part of the value of getting into heaven relies on the concept that not everyone does?

Dear Giordano.

Did I ever say that? No, I don't think I did.

Cpl Ferro

Dear Cpl Ferro.

See that thing at the end of Giordano's post? That's called a "question mark"; that usually indicates a desire for more information, not a simple affirmation that the object of the question had none at all.

I have to tell you (not that you'll care, I'm sure) that the overriding lesson I'm learning from you is that the best way to avoid being mistaken for someone who's said anything substantial is to avoid as much as possible saying anything at all.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Donn,

I don't know why you think I'm being any more sincere or any less insulting with this greeting than with the other. If you think I'm being insincere and insulting, you should simply stop communicating with me. Perhaps I was stupid and lacking in integrity in changing my greeting for you.

If you're interested in Christianity's evidential foundation I recommend The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, and the chapter 13 (The Reality of the Resurrection) of The Reason for God by Timothy Keller. Basically, it doesn't make sense that the Resurrection was faked.

If you're interested in the Old Testament, consider this video:

Rational Approach to the Divine Origin of Judaism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEg_Oys4NkA

I've perceived it and don't quite understand it. Perhaps you will have better luck.

But, all of this depends on you throwing away your "I don't know if things need reasons" card, which can trump anything anyone says that you aren't comfortable with.

Cpl Ferro

Lovely Ferro, Fair as May:

As opposed to, say, your position of credulousness, which is based upon the assertion that there must be a 'god', and it must have "created" the universe "for" a reason; all with no evidence at all.

You appear to have simply skipped over the question of why you seem to be claiming that the "Principle of Sufficient Reason" does not apply to your 'god'.

 

[turingtest]

Oh, dear god- Lee Strobel as the attorney for the defense of "Christianity's evidential foundation." This is well and truly jumping the shark- I don't think I have ever read anything so superficial as The Case For Christ. No surprise that CplFerro recommends it, though.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Not wanting to do good is not the same as enjoying yourself, bruto.

Cpl Ferro

Precious Ferro, who shames the Honeysuckle:

Understanding that there is no evidence at all that any of the 'gods' exist is not the same as "not wanting to do good".

 

[ehcks]

I struggle with the same thing, ehcks. But, I suppose I must submit to the wisdom of God.

Well that just sounds depressing. I will not become mindless a slave to a being that does not even show itself, and whose wisdom includes damning to hell those who don't believe.

No free will, then?

Cpl Ferro

Free will comes from consciousness, which is a property of the mind, which is a property of the brain, which is entirely material.