"God, Atheism, and what the hell"

[46and2]

Hello ladies and gentlemen, If your sick of threads regarding the afterlife or religon, read no further! Me and my good pal Amnesiac started another debate and unintentionally kind of strayed from the topic. If you are interested in following what we've been talking about, please go to this link and it will inform you:

http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26127&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

Also anyone whom wishes to jump in please do so and as Amnesiac so cleverly put it "let it all out". Feel free to tear each others belief systems apart (or mine for that matter), let go entirley just please no remarks bearing personal insult toward anyone because of their beliefs, and please I'll ask you not to call a particular group, sect, religon, or organization "a bunch of morons" or something to that effect. Me and Amnesiac can have these disscussions and part as friends, there is no reason the rest of us can't.

Also a note to other Christians whom wish to participate: I am considered to be part of the sect of Christianity that has been labeled (I hate labels, but what the hell), "Christian Universalists", which means I believe in the salvation of all mankind, and believe the bible when translated literally supports this belief, if you have any questions about it feel free to ask in this disscussion or e-mail me, the adress is in my profile.

On to the thread:


Amnesiac:
"Reward? Does this mean the mortal coil is done in pursuit of a GOAL? Hmmmmmmmm?! Sounds rather materialistic, even in a spiritual way. Besides, maybe it could be argued that the reward can be used to rationalize the suffering one endures, no matter how unfair."

Everything is done in pursuit of a goal, name something that isn't, even if the goal is simple self-gratification, no matter how irrational that goal may be, everything is done for the purpose of gain. It's only a matter of whom we hurt or don't hurt in the process that makes it right or wrong. If you think humanity endures suffering because of God....well I suppose parents could lock there kids up in a sanitary and harmless room for the duration of their life, so they won't get hurt by the rest of the world.

Amnesiac:
"A racer has just won his trophy. He is battered, bruised, beaten and his legs have broken, but he's ecstatic.

RACER: I WON! I WON! YES!

GUY in CROWD: Yeah, way to go! You got it didn't ya? And after all that running too...gee, ya didn't even slow down when life clubbed you in the head did ya...or, or when circumstance tripped you and knocked out your front teeth...remember when situation sodomized you? I thought you were done for there. But you got your trophy! Yay! Of course, you can't run anymore now...because, y'know, your legs are broken and...probably won't heal completely...but HEY! It was worth it wasn't it?

RACER:...awww.....FUCK!"

This is inconsistent with what I said, the racer broke both legs and won't ever heal completeley, in the version of the afterlife the Bible teaches you are healed completley.

Amnesiac:
"Think of it this way. If the tool cripples you in the process of teaching, then you'll never be back at 100%...which means that you may not be able to use the lesson as best as you could before the "injury"..."

But you are healed one hundred percent no matter what, there is no crippling, for crippling would be a permanent thing. And sometims injury helps you learn your lesson alot quicker.

"which can not only curtail your ability to complete your learning process, but the results of which can set you up for unpleasant "cleansing" that you probably wouldn't need if you hadn't been hurt."

Alot of human beings (not all, I won't even say most) build up emotional barriers when they are hurt, you face your hurt for what it is and come to terms with it or you self-program yourself to react differently. You mereley overcome these feelings now, or you do so in the next life with a little extra help.

Amnesiac:
"Norm McDonald in bed with a broken arm. Life stands next to him. They discuss a life lesson Norm has just learned.

NORM: Wow, that was...that was SOME lesson, boy I'll tell ya.

LIFE: Yeah, a real doozy.

NORM: Is it always that hard for other people?

LIFE: No, not really. I was as surprised as you were.

NORM: Well, as long as I learned something, that's what counts right?

LIFE: That's it, that's the spirit! Find the best in it.

NORM: Yeah, yeah, that's what counts! Y'know, even if you DID break my arm in the process...yeah...yeah, y'know I thought you were just gonna, y'know twist it a little or, maybe squeeze it, or, or any other kind of pain in small amounts...yeah, but you...you just broke the whole thing. Wow, that's uh...that's somethin' I'll tell ya what."

I must admit this is quite humorous LOL (I can picture Norm saying something like that), but however a break is mereley a twist and a squeeze on a broader scale, and the vast majority of the time people are given a "squeeze" at least far before the break ever comes their way, they just choose to ignore the warning, or the break happens to them because of the cause of another human. But let's take the vast minority and put them into perspective:

Little Julie walks home from school, there is supposed to be rain, her parents are aware of this but they can't pick her up because the car broke down, Julie doesn't live far from home, so she decides to walk, and she is dressed for the weather. Julie happens to walk by a tree simultaniousley as it is being struck by lightning, the tree falls, hitting her and she becomes paralyzed from the waste down. However this is an act of nature, (some people would say act of God), the laws of physics came into play and Julie was at the wrong place at the wrong time. Nobodys fault whatsoever.

BUT she has two choices:

A) Remain depressed about it for the entirety of her life, die bitter and unhappy.

B) Compensate for her handicaps, get married & have kids (if she wants to),get a career she loves, or in a more general way have a long happy healthy life before dieing.

Amnesiac:
"First of all, I'm NOT making light of your friend's ordeal (even I'M not THAT wrong)."

Oh no bro! (LOL) I don't think you are at all, don't worry about it.

"But is it too much to research a person's past and get a blood test from them before you do anything with them? Or is that WAY too extreme a measure in the social world and normally people don't go that far?"

This would fall under human accountability again, the plain fact of the matter is that most people don't do that, they decide to trust the person instead. Again your also limiting your scope to where people can afford it, and blood tests are available.

My friend definitley had accountability in this issue herself, but she's only human, I might have made the same mistake with a woman who I dug on at the age she was at.


Amnesiac:
"And if someone is a sociopath (someone with no conscience through no choice of their own), then...isn't God responsible for that?"

That depends on whether you think Sociopaths are born or made by society, I don't think either/or has been proven, but I might be wrong and I'll try to clear that up, here is websters definition of a Sociopath:
"One who is affected with a personality disorder marked by antisocial behavior."

Amnesiac:
"I'd prefer complete oblivion; to not exist in any way shape or form. That way I don't have to answer to anybody or owe anybody anything."

Yes but you would also not be able to think for yourself because you simply wouldn't be. I guess it depends on whether you value this kind of freedom over the ability to be aware, to reason, and to feel.

Amnesiac:
"As for why we die, the best answer I can think of comes from an episode of Bablyon 5, in the words of Lorien, the oldest being in the universe (and a better idea of God than any I've heard of)


"At first we were kept in balance by birth rate...then I think the universe decided that to appreciate life, for there to be change and growth, life had to be short...so those who followed us grew old, infirmed and died....To live on as we have is to leave behind joy and love and companionship because we know it to be transitory: of the moment. We know it will turn to ash. Only those whose lives are brief can believe that love is eternal."


By that rationale your believing in a God, your just calling him the universe, this would also fall into the realm of a higher being making decisions for us and deciding what is best for us which would be contradictory to the point of view you've presented earlier. Also there is nothing that proves that if you can love someone for a lifetime and that you can't love them eternally, or that love would cease to exist if we are immortal.

Amnesiac:
"This sounds sinister. As a being with precognition, he'd know what would happen. Tell me, as a mortal, which is more FUN? Letting your opponent go and taking solace in the knowledge that you are right? Or letting them think they've won knowing that they'll come crawling back to you?"

Tell me as a mortal which would you do for your children, lock them up in a basement with everything they need to survive? Or teach them the best you could and allow them to live their own lives?

Amnesiac:
"By the way, I'm going to remember that "created our own flaws" line for future reference (bwahahahahahaha!)"

(gasp!)😉

Amnesiac:
"From what I can remember, God found out that they ate the fruit, and then said "Okay! Everybody out of the pool!". Even though he knew they had been duped...AFTER they told him of course."

No he knew from the beggining, what had happened, he allowed them the oppurtunity to tell him the truth. And yes he threw them out of eden, I didn't say he didn't. But allow me to explain that Eve was lied to, but the Hebrew word which we can best translate as "seduced", in Hebrew meant to entice into sex, in short Lucifer boned her, she CHOSE to believe the serpent whom had cum inside her, instead of her father whom had given them eternal life. Adam went along with his wife rather then refusing her, the fruit was sweeter to him then the tranquility he lived in therefore sin DID appeal to them, also there is nothing that suggests they didn't know what God would do if they ate from the tree, the tree allowed them to be mortal, and to be succeptable to the threats of the world around them, for God did tell them that they would die if they ate of it. He allowed them the choice, to take of mortality or not and it was something they wanted, they just had to figure it out for themselves.

Amnesiac:
"The point of this argument was that the man was going to get what he was going to get in the first place, so why was he not compensated for all the work he did that he wasn't paid for already? If you agree to do a job and you fall and break your legs, is it enough that they pay you for the job and say "there ya go?" You were going to get paid for the job whether you broke your legs or not, so what about the compensation? And another thing: Anybody who belongs to the world will tell you that just because you look and work towards a better job doesn't mean you'll get it."

Your point would be valid if he were doing something that was neccessary to his immortality, however, he was building a house for HIMSELF. The only person whom could reward himself for working for himself is guess who? HIMSELF. It wasn't neccessary to anyone, it was just something he wanted to do (and there is nothing wrong with that).
What is God not compensating him for that he should?


Amnesiac:
"Which means that the entire journey of life is pointless. Because if you start at point A before life and end at point A after life...you end up right back where you started from.
That's not a journey...THAT'S A CIRCLE!"

A circle or an infinite path with infinite possibilities? Just because the heaven we know of is the level beyond this one does not believe that there is a level beyond that which we will grow to and perhaps reach a destination of wonders that Adam and Eve never experianced in Eden, it's still eternal because life is eternal.

Amnesiac:
"It doesn't GO anywhere!"

Niether does oblivion, it's mereley nothing, I would even prefer "Bliss-On-Tap" to that.

Amnesiac:
"Everything you learned on the journey doesn't matter because you'd never go anywhere with it except back to where you started from."


Perhaps beyond where you started from, a greater enlightenment and understanding of your self then you had before.

Amnesiac:
"Also, doesn't that seem sinister to you? Because, with all the cleansing and after-life forgiveness that happens after death...then all your humanity is stripped away. That means that all free will was was a toy that you got to play with for a while, but never get to keep.God puts you on Earth...to create your individuality...only to burn it away with the afterlife cleansing when you go back to being someone who thinks he's the BEST! Eitehr way, you start and end as a conformist drone."

Whose to say we don't have free will in heaven? We're just incapable of hurting one another and ourselves. Or maybe there is no desire too because we've learned better, and our logic and spirit finally prevail over our emotions and motivations.
I will admit that this is the best point you've made thus far.



"There! Try and top THAT! (noogie-noogie-noogie!)"

I think I just did (titty-twister!)
😉-Phil

 

[Amnesiac]

AAAAAAAAAOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWW!

OOoooooooooooh....why you doity-! AH!

Okay, that's it, gloves're off now me bucko.

I. Racer and the Broken Legs (sounds like a movie doen't it?)

This is inconsistent with what I said, the racer broke both legs and won't ever heal completeley, in the version of the afterlife the Bible teaches you are healed completley.

Say what? If Heaven (or the afterlife) contains none of the properties, physical traits or dimensional laws of the real world, then what would you be doing with LEGS? With bones and muscle? It wouldn't apply because you would not longer be mortal and therefore no longer require running the race.

Metaphorically speaking, the RACE was a portion of the life journey and the trophy was whatever goal you sought (in this case, understanding, not necessarily Divine). The idea of the skit was to point out that the runner went through EVERYTHING to get what he sought (in this case SHOULD have sought), and he did...but to do that he lost the very things he needed to get him there. Now, he probably can't even walk to the wall to put his trophy up because his legs don't work. OR, it means that he will be delayed in getting to the next race until his legs heal, and even when they do, he won't be able to run as fast as he used to or keep up with the other runners who are running alongside him. So he paid a price that was very harsh for something that is essentially very necessary.

It's like if the enlightened stage of life were a big game of handball on a handball court. You get up the hill to the desk and the clerk admits you, but before you go through he breaks your hand and then gives you a ball and says "Now, go have fun!" And when you ask what he broke your hand for, he says "well, that's the price you have to pay to be ready to play", which of course you can't because your HAND IS BROKEN!

In THIS instance, then the person who is at least responsible in design would be God. If for NO OTHER reason it would be because these little "rules" of give and take I just illustrated humorously and metaphorically, were designed by him. They aren't very efficient and they often operate at the expense of the poor sap who was born into that world.


But you are healed one hundred percent no matter what, there is no crippling, for crippling would be a permanent thing. And sometims injury helps you learn your lesson alot quicker.

You were spanked as a child, weren't you?

Again, what good is learning the lesson if it diminishes your ability to use it? Imagine someone puts your hand on a hot stove and actually burns your hand off...then says "now remember, don't go sticking your hands on a hot stove."...to which you reply..."well, that'll be easy because I only have ONE HAND LEFT!" In which case the lesson was wasted because the point of the lesson would be to teach you not to go and doing something deliberately. The lesson in this case removed your ability to actually do the thing you were supposed to learn not to do. It's counter-productive.


II. Norm McDonald's Broken Arm (more with the broken bone thing)

Alot of human beings (not all, I won't even say most) build up emotional barriers when they are hurt, you face your hurt for what it is and come to terms with it or you self-program yourself to react differently. You mereley overcome these feelings now, or you do so in the next life with a little extra help

This is true...because our brain physiology, by design, has to do that in order to adapt, otherwise we risk death and complete mental collapse. As the creator of the human brain, God would therefore, be culpable for any maladaptations that take place.

That's what I've never understood about therapists...if your parents molested you when you were little, the therapist tries to help you come to grips with what happened and then to help you overcome it. Meanwhile, your parents don't do anything. They made the mistake and they aren't even called to fix what they broke. Sure, if the law catches them, they can be punished, but they can't repair the damage that was done. So essentially, the parents broke the plate, but the plate has to fix itself...AND fit the bill left behind. The question is (and no, I was not molested, I was just using an example) "Why should I have to pay for what THEY broke? They broke it, let them pay for it!"

So, on that note, if something bad happens to someone and they develop a maladjustment, they are still held accountable and assigned "cleansing" and/or "punishment" for what they do, when what they're really doing is acting out of a mental behavior created by the pattern their neurons made to PROTECT itself. Considering that people believe children have to be taught everything because they don't know it themselves, how the fuck can people expect children to figure out that "letting go" is what they have to do? You give them the benefit of a doubt that they can figure out a deep, abstract concept of self-understanding but not enough doubt to let them eat at the table without telling them how to hold utensils?

Besides, wasn't it you who told me that "to be cruel to be kind IS cruel"? Or was that someone else? It might have been someone else.

...people are given a "squeeze" at least far before the break ever comes their way, they just choose to ignore the warning, or the break happens to them because of the cause of another human.

Well considering that in this case, if the warning and the real lesson look virtually identical at preliminary glance, how can you tell what's going to happen? If you are red/green color blind and you have to go through one of two doors, one red and the other green, you wouldn't be able to tell which is the right doorand therefore adequately prepare yourself for what lies behind it.

Little Julie walks home from school, there is supposed to be rain, her parents are aware of this but they can't pick her up because the car broke down, Julie doesn't live far from home, so she decides to walk, and she is dressed for the weather. Julie happens to walk by a tree simultaniousley as it is being struck by lightning, the tree falls, hitting her and she becomes paralyzed from the waste down. However this is an act of nature, (some people would say act of God), the laws of physics came into play and Julie was at the wrong place at the wrong time. Nobodys fault whatsoever.

BUT she has two choices:

A) Remain depressed about it for the entirety of her life, die bitter and unhappy.

B) Compensate for her handicaps, get married & have kids (if she wants to),get a career she loves, or in a more general way have a long happy healthy life before dieing

Well, first off I didn't say that God was responsible for the break or Julie's paralysis. Life, a literary personification fo the state of being, was responsible...but that is an abstract. And you're right in saying that it was an act of nature and completely unpredictable. No argument there.

What I was getting pissy about was the idea that Julie had to become paralyzed to LEARN something that could be learned just as well without such a high price. Imagine that Julie is about 8-years-old.

46AND2: Don't let the paralysis get you down. Maybe this could work for you in a positive way.

JULIE: How?

46AND2: This could be the...the OBSTACLE that you need to overcome to find what you are looking for. Once you find the strength to beat this thing, you can find a way to appreciate life and to love it. And then it won't bother you so much.

JULIE: ...Let me ask you something. Do you appreciate life and love it?

46AND2: I sure do! 🙂

JULIE: But you still have your legs right?

46AND2: ...Well...uh...yes, yes I still have my legs.

JULIE: And you learned to love life without losing them...right?

46AND2: Well...yeeeeeeeessssss....

JULIE: So...you didn't need to lose them to learn this lesson did you?

46AND2: ...Well...no.

JULIE: I DIDN'T THINK SO! How long did it take you to learn that lesson?!

46AND2: I dunno...twenty years or so-

JULIE: TWENTY YEARS?! I'm 8 you twerp! EIGHT! What the FUCK was so important that I had to learn that NOW this quickly?! If I gotta take TWENTY YEARS to learn how to love life in this fucking chair, why couldn't I just do OUTSIDE this chair? Because time obviosuly ins't a factor!

46AND2: Where did you learn those words?

JULIE: STALLL-ING!


Also, if her brain's reaction is to maladjust, then that's something she's gonna have to be "cleansed" of and probably "punished" for come the afterlife. And if God knew all this building her brain, he deliberately built her so that she would have to suffer all this shit just to learn a lesson that he made her brain too bull-headed to learn easily. That's like engineering someone to make mistakes just so you have the reasons to punish them. SADISTIC!

By the way, how does a happy life entail marriage and kids? Maybe she can be happy without them. PLUS, how do you know she'll live a long and happy life? Maybe the batteries on her life support die or somebody trips the circuit breaker and she chokes to death at the age of 11 when her equipment shuts down? Or maybe the brake on her wheel chair fails and she rolls into head-on traffic, but that's a bit silly....could STILL happen though.


III. Oblivion

Yes but you would also not be able to think for yourself because you simply wouldn't be. I guess it depends on whether you value this kind of freedom over the ability to be aware, to reason, and to feel

I DO like to reason and think. But if, in the afterlife there are all these provisos, then it isn't worth it. Besides, if God gave me the ability to reason and think, I'd tell him to shove it and take his gift back (and THEN destroy me) because then it means that my abilities were given to me. Whether it was in good-heartedness or charity doesn't matter because those abilities were never mine to begin with. I wouldn't have them unless someone gave them to me. I'd rather not have them (and not exist) than be reminded every second by their very existence that I couldn't do it myself. Analagously speaking, it would be like getting a very nice gift for no reason...but every second you have it, the gift reminds you that you couldn't build/afford it yourself; you wouldn't even have it if it wasn't given to you. THAT'S torture right there.

Besides, oblivion would be nothingness...no pleasure, but no pain; no sides, no loyalties; no thought, no responsibility; no gains, no debts. Yeah, I may not exist, but it sounds GREAT to me to not have to deal with a lot of shit I have no control over.


IV. Lorien

By that rationale your believing in a God, your just calling him the universe, this would also fall into the realm of a higher being making decisions for us and deciding what is best for us which would be contradictory to the point of view you've presented earlier. Also there is nothing that proves that if you can love someone for a lifetime and that you can't love them eternally, or that love would cease to exist if we are immortal

I wasn't saying I endoresed that belief of the Universe as God. That was Lorien's...I liked it because it stated a piece of reasoning that led to the rest of what he said, which commented on your comment (ad infinitum). The reason I thought it made sense was that since things in this Universe adapt over time under their own development, why couldn't the properties of the Universe do the same? That doesn't mean the Universe thinks and said "okay, life is short...NOW!".

By the way, you can't prove that love WOULD exist if we were immortal. There was an "X-Files" episode called "Tithonus" about a man who cheated death by accident and couldn't die as a result. When asked why he didn't want to live forever, he said "A few years ago, I went down to the um...the Hall of Records...whatever its called. I tried to look up my wife...frustrated me...I couldn't remember her name." Maybe the reason so many people believe in love and all that rot is because life is so short...if they lived longer, like Elves, they might change their tune.

V. Other

Tell me as a mortal which would you do for your children, lock them up in a basement with everything they need to survive? Or teach them the best you could and allow them to live their own lives

A little bit of both. I'd keep him/her sheltered for a few years while I tried to mold their brain so that they could learn for themselves if anything ever happened to me. Nothing crazy, really, just the nurturing of independent thought so that they would never have to rely entirely on school, authorities and even ME to become smart. I'd also teach them the tricks of life so that they wouldn't be caught off guard as often, and how to get around a lot of obstacles in short amounts of time with less effort.


VI. Eden

No [God] knew from the beggining, what had happened, he allowed them the oppurtunity to tell him the truth. And yes he threw them out of eden, I didn't say he didn't. But allow me to explain that Eve was lied to, but the Hebrew word which we can best translate as "seduced", in Hebrew meant to entice into sex, in short Lucifer boned her, she CHOSE to believe the serpent whom had cum inside her, instead of her father whom had given them eternal life. Adam went along with his wife rather then refusing her, the fruit was sweeter to him then the tranquility he lived in therefore sin DID appeal to them, also there is nothing that suggests they didn't know what God would do if they ate from the tree, the tree allowed them to be mortal, and to be succeptable to the threats of the world around them, for God did tell them that they would die if they ate of it. He allowed them the choice, to take of mortality or not and it was something they wanted, they just had to figure it out for themselves

Whoa, Eve fucked the snake? THAT wasn't in the book! Damn Christian moralists, taking all the good stuff out. That means Eve fucked the Devil...I guess that goes to show women always do like the Bad Boys over the good ones.

I suppose it would depend on the perspectives of the Jews vs. Christians (which would be interesting; we should get dig_dog_dug in here) and what was actually meant. What I've always wondered is: Does knowledge of good and evil strip away your immortality, or could God reinstate it if he wanted to? And anyway, if God knew the difference between good and evil and humans didn't, how the hell can they be friends? They wouldn't be able to talk/relate to each other about things. Not to mention the fact that Adam and Eve probably weren't on such good terms with God (I can't remember if they told the truth from the beginning or if they lied and THEN told the truth), because if they lied first, then they were obviously scared of him and didn't trust him; after all, you said Adam trusted his wife (why not? He had no reason NOT to). If they told the truth off the bat, they were cast out anyway. No wonder women lie: they told the truth once and look what it got them. They may have had a choice not to trust the serpent (but they were innocent and that's what innocents do: they trusted God, so why wouldn't they trust the snake?), but God also had the choice to not be an asshole and let things slide.

...to be continued.

 

[Amnesiac]

AAAAAAAAAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWW! (part deux)

On the Eden note, one more little thing...if the fruit was tastier than the elesium of Paradise, then God obviously made a mistake in the design of Creation.


VII. Man and his House

Your point would be valid if he were doing something that was neccessary to his immortality, however, he was building a house for HIMSELF. The only person whom could reward himself for working for himself is guess who? HIMSELF. It wasn't neccessary to anyone, it was just something he wanted to do (and there is nothing wrong with that).

Again, as I said, if we have to suffer and work to be rewarded, then I am right. Because the man didn't resist what he was told what to do to get what he wanted; he accepted it. What I'm saying is that he did what he was told he had to do, he did it, and then wasn't even allowed his reward. It's like working your ass off at a non-paying job for forty years and when you stop working, you don't even get a plaque for your name (which might have been the only thing you wanted). The guy WANTED a reward, worked his ass off to get it, and was then denied it. So he did more work than he was rewarded for, so that leaves a discrepancy, an imbalance.


VII. Jason Takes-no,no...Circular Paths

A circle or an infinite path with infinite possibilities? Just because the heaven we know of is the level beyond this one does not believe that there is a level beyond that which we will grow to and perhaps reach a destination of wonders that Adam and Eve never experianced in Eden, it's still eternal because life is eternal

I'm still not quite sure what you mean, but it sounds like God's building more Heaven higher and higher so we have more places to work our way up to, without ever really getting anywhere except one story higher than the one we're on. LIke a parking space that's closer to the building, only to find that more parking spaces are being built which means you'll never get there.

Amnesiac: "It doesn't GO anywhere!"

Niether does oblivion, it's mereley nothing, I would even prefer "Bliss-On-Tap" to that.

True, but at least with oblivion, there wouldn't be anywhere TO go. If life is like as we described it, then we're going in circular motions again and again, learning new things, but never really GETTING anywhere. At least with oblivion you only have to go through it once and then its over. No more.

Amnesiac:
"Everything you learned on the journey doesn't matter because you'd never go anywhere with it except back to where you started from."

Perhaps beyond where you started from, a greater enlightenment and understanding of your self then you had before.

It's still a matter of efficiency. According to you, God has plans for us and things he wants us to learn. Fine, why go about it the long way around? If the only difference between understanding divine knowledge is the experience in learning it, then it doesn't matter. It's an experience one has on Earth and Earthly things wouldn't carry over to the other side (purged of the "baggage" on the way, as you recall), or they wouldn't apply. If you begin existence knowing God and end things knowing God, why bother setting up the interim? You're just going to wind up right back where you were, so the whole trip doesn't mean anything. Think of it this way: If little Julie was paralyzed and learned to hate life, and was cleansed after her death, it was as if the whole thing never happened. So why bother having it happen in the first place? Are you saying that negative experiences are kept if someone BENEFITS from them and purged if they DON'T? That shows favoritism.

Whose to say we don't have free will in heaven? We're just incapable of hurting one another and ourselves. Or maybe there is no desire too because we've learned better, and our logic and spirit finally prevail over our emotions and motivations.

Logic and spirit operate on different planes of necissity. Not only that, you just said "prevail over our emotions and motivations". Emotions are the things we feel that give us our humanity, which is what God supposedly values. If we prevail over them, then they were never important to begin with, so why not just get rid of them? God is Love right? Isn't THAT an emotion?

(crowd "oooooooooooh"s)

There's a comic book called Johnny, The Homicidal Maniac. And in one issue, he goes to Heaven by accident and while waiting for his transfer, he is allowed to tour the place and finds everyone in Heaven sitting at small tables staring off into space because all desire and motivation have been eliminated because Heaven doesn't need it. He also learns that he can blow people's heads up with his thoughts; he can't kill them, but he triggers the desires in the people to feel again, and then everyone starts blowing up each other's heads, and the "angel" guiding him says "Stop it! You;re fucking up EVERYTHING!" But the Scanners-esque qualities non-withstanding, that kind of addresses what you mean:

A place that has promise and wonder, but with no motivation to seek it; where people are enlightened by knowledge that has no application; a creation of a God of Love where emotion has been conquered. A place full of contradictions that you and many others seem to create by mixing and matching certain aspects of life and experience to create to justify your belief in a meaning to life.

(I don't mean than in an insulting way, honest)

THERE! Ain't found a way to beat me yet! (Weeeeeeeeeeedgie!)

 

[BigJim]

A favour to ask of all Christians. (Or whatever religion.)

When I've been involved in religious discussion here, it's always seemed to be one way to me. Namely, that I write posts similar in length to the three above this one, and that no-one really tries to argue or debate with my points. The replys are always along the lines of "nice interesting post, but I believe what I believe".

What I would really like is some questions asked of me and some constructive critiscism of my writing, from people who don't agree with them. I'm assuming that 46 and Amnesiac have both read all of the information I've written in these various forums, so what I'd like to hear is what you guys think about it. And rather than just saying "yeah I beilieve what you say" or "no, I don't believe what you say", please tell me why you think that way, and bring up specific points. I've gone into very fine detail to hammer conventional religion, and I would really like a detailed debate about all the fine points. I'm not asking you to defend your faith to yourself, I just a discussion. If you think I'm wrong, please tell me why and where. If you want me to dredge up the specific posts and copy and paste them, then I will; but it took nearly 7 hours to produce all that stuff, so I'm not capable of typing it all out again.

 

[46and2]

Touche and Ungaurd

Sorry I haven't time to continue this disscussion over the last couple days.
BigJim: I'll read and absorb your stuff and try to tell you what I think by tommorow night.

"Metaphorically speaking, the RACE was a portion of the life journey and the trophy was whatever goal you sought (in this case, understanding, not necessarily Divine). The idea of the skit was to point out that the runner went through EVERYTHING to get what he sought (in this case SHOULD have sought), and he did...but to do that he lost the very things he needed to get him there. Now, he probably can't even walk to the wall to put his trophy up because his legs don't work. OR, it means that he will be delayed in getting to the next race until his legs heal, and even when they do, he won't be able to run as fast as he used to or keep up with the other runners who are running alongside him. So he paid a price that was very harsh for something that is essentially very necessary."

God gives you a new and improved set of legs to run the next race with (I'm talking about what you gain in the afterlife) and know I don't believe the afterlife is a race I'm just going off of your analogy, and the price ,no matter how harsh, is well invested if you've made an extremely substantial profit.

"It's like if the enlightened stage of life were a big game of handball on a handball court. You get up the hill to the desk and the clerk admits you, but before you go through he breaks your hand and then gives you a ball and says "Now, go have fun!" And when you ask what he broke your hand for, he says "well, that's the price you have to pay to be ready to play", which of course you can't because your HAND IS BROKEN!"


I assume the broken hand (please correct me if I'm wrong)your reffering to is humanity loseing it's immortality, as I spoke of earlier. They were aware that their hand would get broken as I pointed out before. We all have that handicap so we all play with a broken hand. Or as I like to refer to it without the body armor. Still we're even given a strategy to help us come out on top.

"In THIS instance, then the person who is at least responsible in design would be God. If for NO OTHER reason it would be because these little "rules" of give and take I just illustrated humorously and metaphorically, were designed by him. They aren't very efficient and they often operate at the expense of the poor sap who was born into that world."

Whether responsible or not the design is not flawed for the limitations are there on purpose. They are effeciant if they help us to gain knowledge, happiness, and fullfillment. The expense brings wealth back infinitley.



"Again, what good is learning the lesson if it diminishes your ability to use it?"

It doesn't diminish your ability to use it, you carry it over into the next life and put it to use.

"Imagine someone puts your hand on a hot stove and actually burns your hand off...then says "now remember, don't go sticking your hands on a hot stove."...to which you reply..."well, that'll be easy because I only have ONE HAND LEFT!" In which case the lesson was wasted because the point of the lesson would be to teach you not to go and doing something deliberately. The lesson in this case removed your ability to actually do the thing you were supposed to learn not to do. It's counter-productive.”

More like if someone tells you if you touch that your hand will be burned off, and this guy built the stove, and then someone who doesn't says "Nah, he's full of it! It will give you an extra hand if you touch it." you decide to believe him and touch it anyway.




“This is true...because our brain physiology, by design, has to do that in order to adapt, otherwise we risk death and complete mental collapse. As the creator of the human brain, God would therefore, be culpable for any maladaptations that take place.”

No your missing my point, the natural way to face a problem is to do just that, FACE it. The other defenses we build we construe ourselves, mostly do to pride and insecurity caused by others.



“So, on that note, if something bad happens to someone and they develop a maladjustment, they are still held accountable and assigned "cleansing" and/or "punishment" for what they do,”

This would fall into the categorey of putting words into my mouth (if not please show me where I said that). I never said anything that suggested that. If they are not accountable they are taught and shown not punished, your mixing up cleansing with punishment as well, they are not the same thing.


“when what they're really doing is acting out of a mental behavior created by the pattern their neurons made to PROTECT itself.”

Again I’m not talking about natural emotions, and your natural response to them being a defense, I am talking about the way we do condition each other and our children which is contrary to Gods word. How people are taught by society to behave is what causes maladjustment. Not how they naturally behave.



“Considering that people believe children have to be taught everything because they don't know it themselves, how the fuck can people expect children to figure out that "letting go" is what they have to do? You give them the benefit of a doubt that they can figure out a deep, abstract concept of self-understanding but not enough doubt to let them eat at the table without telling them how to hold utensils?”

I’m not really sure how this analogy ties in to anything I’ve said. If you were responding to a point I made please rephrase it.

“Besides, wasn't it you who told me that "to be cruel to be kind IS cruel"? Or was that someone else? It might have been someone else”

I’m afraid it was someone else.

“Well considering that in this case, if the warning and the real lesson look virtually identical at preliminary glance, how can you tell what's going to happen? If you are red/green color blind and you have to go through one of two doors, one red and the other green, you wouldn't be able to tell which is the right doorand therefore adequately prepare yourself for what lies behind it.”

You are correct but are talking about a rare situation, I was stating that the majority of the time we are given a very clear warning before detrimental things do happen, in the cases where we are not that may or may not be something God intended. We can choose to learn from it or not in this life, we can also overcome it in the next, in the scheme of things it doesn’t matter.


“What I was getting pissy about was the idea that Julie had to become paralyzed to LEARN something that could be learned just as well without such a high price. Imagine that Julie is about 8-years-old.”

A person with legs could not learn how to make do without them until they lost them (I guess they could if they really wanted to) but why would they? What exactly could a person whom hadn’t been through the same thing learn without paying the price. I was presenting a situation where someone didn’t learn a lesson, something bad just happened to them. The statement I was making was that she had the choice to overcome the situation or let it rule her life.


“46AND2: Don't let the paralysis get you down. Maybe this could work for you in a positive way.

JULIE: How?

46AND2: This could be the...the OBSTACLE that you need to overcome to find what you are looking for. Once you find the strength to beat this thing, you can find a way to appreciate life and to love it. And then it won't bother you so much.

JULIE: ...Let me ask you something. Do you appreciate life and love it?

46AND2: I sure do! 🙂

JULIE: But you still have your legs right?

46AND2: ...Well...uh...yes, yes I still have my legs”

JULIE: And you learned to love life without losing them...right?

46AND2: Well...yeeeeeeeessssss....

JULIE: So...you didn't need to lose them to learn this lesson did you?

46AND2: ...Well...no.

JULIE: I DIDN'T THINK SO! How long did it take you to learn that lesson?!

46AND2: I dunno...twenty years or so-

JULIE: TWENTY YEARS?! I'm 8 you twerp! EIGHT! What the FUCK was so important that I had to learn that NOW this quickly?! If I gotta take TWENTY YEARS to learn how to love life in this fucking chair, why couldn't I just do OUTSIDE this chair? Because time obviosuly ins't a factor!

46AND2: Where did you learn those words?

JULIE: STALLL-ING!”

Well chief, since you took the liberty to use me as an example , let me point out that you don’t know what I’ve been through and niether would Julie in this case (I'm not angry or offended, just making a point). I wouldn’t be so self-rightoues as to assume I knew what she was going through, and nor was I saying that she needed to lose her legs in order to appreciate life, and besides if she learned to appreciate life and overcome her obstacles that young then she sure as fuck would have a head start and be a lot happier then most people with legs, or she could lose to it and let it defeat her, choice would be hers.

“Also, if her brain's reaction is to maladjust, then that's something she's gonna have to be "cleansed" of and probably "punished" for come the afterlife.”

Again your assuming she would be punished for these things, the blood of Jesus would be sufficient to cleanse her it would only be a matter of how long it took her to accept it from him.

“And if God knew all this building her brain, he deliberately built her so that she would have to suffer all this shit just to learn a lesson that he made her brain too bull-headed to learn easily. That's like engineering someone to make mistakes just so you have the reasons to punish them. SADISTIC!”

People choose to be bullheaded and they choose to maladjust, we tamper with the engineering. And you still seem to be stuck on the idea that most non-christians will be punished temporarily, I never said that. So how would God be sadistic?

“By the way, how does a happy life entail marriage and kids?”

I never said it had to, I was hoping the “if she wants to” in parenthesis would show you that I didn’t think it did. Makes some people happy, others would rather not and that’s fine.

“PLUS, how do you know she'll live a long and happy life? Maybe the batteries on her life support die or somebody trips the circuit breaker and she chokes to death at the age of 11 when her equipment shuts down? Or maybe the brake on her wheel chair fails and she rolls into head-on traffic, but that's a bit silly....could STILL happen though.”

Then she has the oppurtunity to leave the game early and be one step ahead of most of us.



“I DO like to reason and think. But if, in the afterlife there are all these provisos, then it isn't worth it. Besides, if God gave me the ability to reason and think, I'd tell him to shove it and take his gift back (and THEN destroy me) because then it means that my abilities were given to me. Whether it was in good-heartedness or charity doesn't matter because those abilities were never mine to begin with. I wouldn't have them unless someone gave them to me. I'd rather not have them (and not exist) than be reminded every second by their very existence that I couldn't do it myself. Analagously speaking, it would be like getting a very nice gift for no reason...but every second you have it, the gift reminds you that you couldn't build/afford it yourself; you wouldn't even have it if it wasn't given to you. THAT'S torture right there”

If pride is more valueable then existance then you are right.

“Besides, oblivion would be nothingness...no pleasure, but no pain; no sides, no loyalties; no thought, no responsibility; no gains, no debts. Yeah, I may not exist, but it sounds GREAT to me to not have to deal with a lot of shit I have no control over.”

If control is more important to you.





“Maybe the reason so many people believe in love and all that rot is because life is so short...if they lived longer, like Elves, they might change their tune.”

My feelings of love have never had anything to do with mortality, in fact mortality makes it a scarier thing to have. If oblivion was what was in store for me, I would have less reason to love then if my soul were truly immortal.







“What I've always wondered is: Does knowledge of good and evil strip away your immortality, or could God reinstate it if he wanted to?”

Perhaps he could if he wanted to. Knowledge of the good and evil existing in our world became necessary with the mortality of flesh, which is why they didn’t need to know it before then. Our flesh bodies the thing that dies, and the thing that loses its mortality.

“And anyway, if God knew the difference between good and evil and humans didn't, how the hell can they be friends?
They wouldn't be able to talk/relate to each other about things.”

They had better things to talk about, and better things to do. If you remove the knowledge of evil from someone they tend to find other things interesting besides conflict.

“Not to mention the fact that Adam and Eve probably weren't on such good terms with God (I can't remember if they told the truth from the beginning or if they lied and THEN told the truth), because if they lied first, then they were obviously scared of him and didn't trust him; after all, you said Adam trusted his wife (why not? He had no reason NOT to). If they told the truth off the bat, they were cast out anyway. No wonder women lie: they told the truth once and look what it got them.”

They didn’t lie, Adam placated Eve, Eve placated the serpent. None of them accepted accountability for what they did, but no they didn’t lie.

“They may have had a choice not to trust the serpent (but they were innocent and that's what innocents do: they trusted God, so why wouldn't they trust the snake?)”

However by trusting the snake they believed God to be a liar thus removing their innocence for what satan said was contrary to what God said. Whom should they have believed?


“but God also had the choice to not be an asshole and let things slide.”
Yeah, he could of given them a slap on the wrist and let it go, but with the knowledge of good and evil comes the temptation to do it, so it would of led to other damage being done, maybe they would have been worse off in Eden and brought more suffering upon themselves then if they had left it.









"On the Eden note, one more little thing...if the fruit was tastier than the elesium of Paradise, then God obviously made a mistake in the design of Creation."

I never said the fruit was sweeter, I was speaking metaphorically when I said the "the sweetness of the fruit", It actually never says what the fruit tasted like. It just says there eyes were opened. The tree was there to give them the oppurtunity to make that choice, for it to be a mistake it would mean that God didn't intend to give them that respect. He told them what they'd be in for if they did eat it, and left them to their individuality and choices.




"Again, as I said, if we have to suffer and work to be rewarded, then I am right. Because the man didn't resist what he was told what to do to get what he wanted; he accepted it. What I'm saying is that he did what he was told he had to do, he did it, and then wasn't even allowed his reward."

God makes us well aware of our limitations and mortality in this life, he had every right to think outside of what he was told, God would of had to of promised him the house in order for him to not be rewarded for his work. If you work a job and are promised double your salary after 10 years of service and get it then you are rewarded for your work. If you make an addition to the office building that you weren't asked to do, and is useless to the company, the boss doesn't care if you do it or not, then expect to get a reward which you weren't even hinted at being promised from your boss then what reward do you truly deserve other then your own self-satisfaction for doing your own work. With a goal comes the risk of failure, the man was aware that he would die one day, and that he would need to finish the work before then, and he failed to do so.


"I'm still not quite sure what you mean, but it sounds like God's building more Heaven higher and higher so we have more places to work our way up to, without ever really getting anywhere except one story higher than the one we're on. LIke a parking space that's closer to the building, only to find that more parking spaces are being built which means you'll never get there."

Why would we want a final destination, when we can have many?


"True, but at least with oblivion, there wouldn't be anywhere TO go. If life is like as we described it, then we're going in circular motions again and again, learning new things, but never really GETTING anywhere. At least with oblivion you only have to go through it once and then its over. No more."

And wheres the value in that? The only thing god puts an end to is suffering. Which in the scope of things is the only thing which is desired to end.


"If the only difference between understanding divine knowledge is the experience in learning it, then it doesn't matter."

It does matter if you've gained more knowledge, appreciation and pleasure because of your journey. You can't learn anything without experiance.


"It's an experience one has on Earth and Earthly things wouldn't carry over to the other side (purged of the "baggage" on the way, as you recall), or they wouldn't apply."

The baggage I was reffering to was the negative effects of this life, the positive(whether or not they stem from negative experiances), things you learn do carry over.

Amnesiac:
"If you begin existence knowing God and end things knowing God, why bother setting up the interim?"

Because we can't know or appreciate what we have until we understand the alternatives.

"You're just going to wind up right back where you were, so the whole trip doesn't mean anything."

Or maybe beyond where we were, any trip which produces positive self development is efficient and meaningful.

Amnesiac:
"Think of it this way: If little Julie was paralyzed and learned to hate life, and was cleansed after her death, it was as if the whole thing never happened. So why bother having it happen in the first place? Are you saying that negative experiences are kept if someone BENEFITS from them and purged if they DON'T? That shows favoritism."


I never said the experiances themselves were purged, only negativity as a whole. We overcome these feelings rather then running away from them and setting up barriers. Thats part of what cleansing is. The memories cease to be unpleasant because we cease to be afraid of them.


"Logic and spirit operate on different planes of necissity."

That's a matter of opinion; they could be two parts of the same whole. Otherwise thoughts would not be described as being positive (good) or negative (evil) in the bible.

"Not only that, you just said "prevail over our emotions and motivations". Emotions are the things we feel that give us our humanity, which is what God supposedly values. If we prevail over them, then they were never important to begin with, so why not just get rid of them? God is Love right? Isn't THAT an emotion?"

Love is a spiritual thing as well as an emotion, hence "God is love" for he is a spiritual being. I'm not saying we lose are emotions, we only overcome (hence "prevail over") the negative ones that are brought about by this existence.



"A place that has promise and wonder, but with no motivation to seek it;"

When did I say that there was no motivation to seek something? Thats why I suggested that there may be levels beyond that (that's not in the Bible mind you; but It's theoretically possible and not contrary to what it says about heaven).

“where people are enlightened by knowledge that has no application; a creation of a God of Love where emotion has been conquered."


A place full of contradictions that you and many others seem to create by mixing and matching certain aspects of life and experience to create to justify your belief in a meaning to life."
(I don't mean than in an insulting way, honest)”

First of all don’t worry about offending me. Although you may be right (I won’t know until I’m dead I guess) about me being a hopeless romantic whom creates these things in my own head in order to put some kind of meaning to life, I still feel it’s a better option then just accepting that there is none. This however is beside the point.

"THERE! Ain't found a way to beat me yet!"

Nor you me mon ami 😉

 

[Oddjob0226]

You people are a bunch of morons for your belif.....

Aw, crap, already screwed up. Why why why do I type when drunk?

 

[ShiningIce]

Wouldnt it be funny if God was an athiest

 

[Amnesiac]

ARGH-ity!

Alright, it seems that I've screwed a few things up by relying on too many humorous skits. I'll try now to start getting things together in a coherent whole so that things go smoother.

Ahem*

I. The RACER and the BROKEN LEGS

God gives you a new and improved set of legs to run the next race with (I'm talking about what you gain in the afterlife) and know I don't believe the afterlife is a race I'm just going off of your analogy, and the price ,no matter how harsh, is well invested if you've made an extremely substantial profit.

Here we seem to get analogies mixed with actualities. The race itself was a metaphor for occurrences in REAL LIFE, not afterlife. What the confusion stemmed from is the consideration of the crippling effects of the "race" in real life and how that is supposed to help in the afterlife.

What I was arguing about was that in the course of our "learning" on Earth, most of our abilities and privileges are crippled and destroyed by our attempts to adhere to the Divine rules (I know you've explained this more in-depth, but the preliminaries first). And again, we make the same analogies with "materialism": the terms "price" and "profit" are terms we both used, but maybe it revealed something that we didn't think of. This supposes that the suffering on Earth is part of the investment and that the "reward" we have discussed is part of what we gain in the afterlife.

The confusing aspect is whether this gain is proportional to the suffering or if the gain is a given regardless of experience on Earth (i.e. a default package that is earned no matter what). Doesn't this suggest that there is a materialistic aspect in the Divine, and that maybe God is a less-than humane (and unimaginative) spiritual capitalist?

(we should get august spies and dig_dug_dog in here)

II. The HANDBALL ANALOGY

This was a really bad one on my part. But here goes.

I]I assume the broken hand your reffering to is humanity loseing it's immortality, as I spoke of earlier. We all have that handicap so we all play with a broken hand, Or as I like to refer to it without the body armor. Still we're even given a strategy to help us come out on top.[/I]

Again, my mistake, as this is like the racer analogy. The broken hand does not represent immortality, it represents damaged functioning in Real Life. The idea is that experience has the potential to be crippling (not for all, but for some) and that since the law of probability doesn't play favorites, no one can say that they will not be a victim of it. Now, I presumed that your reasoning for expierience was that it helps us to learn new things that give us a greater spiritual understanding. However, the experience itself can cause damage both physical and mental (hence, the BROKEN HAND). These results of experience can cause psychological/physical damage that makes it more and more difficult to put the lesson to use in the Real World, because the real world may put the recent experience-ee in a situation where that handicap is going to impede their progress, and as a result, their FULL potential will not be used, which means that their time on Earth (for whatever purpose it is supposed to serve) will not be complete.

On top of that, if such a property of happenstance were engineered by God to happen in creation, then he deliberately created reality to be obstructive, wasteful and incomplete (hence flawed), which sends people on a life path that ensures them a lot of suffering in this life and the next (hence the sadistic argument).

III. I & II combined

Whether responsible or not the design is not flawed for the limitations are there on purpose. They are effeciant if they help us to gain knowledge, happiness, and fullfillment. The expense brings wealth back infinitley.

"Again, what good is learning the lesson if it diminishes your ability to use it?"
It doesn't diminish your ability to use it, you carry it over into the next life and put it to use.

Again, the flaws are there, as you said, for a purpose. But is this purpose ever explained? And even if it is so (and I'd love to hear them) God is still never called to answer for it, especially if he is responsible, and since all of creation would be under his eye, he would be. In this world, even if you do a good thing for a good reason, if someone suffers as a result of your machinations, you are held responsible and penalized for it...this doesn't happen to God. This is an discrepancy.

As far as the next life goes, who cares? The diminished ability happens HERE on the mortal plane. To be placed here on Earth only to regard it as unimportant by comparison is wasteful because why put the effort into building a condemned place?

IV. Humans

No your missing my point, the natural way to face a problem is to do just that, FACE it. The other defenses we build we construe ourselves, mostly do to pride and insecurity caused by others.

No, the BEST way to face a problem is to face it. And when we're young, that's how we do it (notice how kids have no tact on stuff like this?). But when people, not just children are traumatized, they either withdraw or retaliate, sometimes both, depending on how the brain reacts to protect the mind in a given situation. If someone withdraws, the brain probably does this to minimize exposure to uncertainty and other frightening things in order to prevent more traumatic experiences. The retaliation occurs to reclaim the sense of security that the trauma has taken from them. In both cases, these are the responses the human brain (a GOD creation according to you), and therefore, should be exempt from responsibility post-death. However, in a lot of these cases on Earth, you are right, they are interfered with by authorities who strip away an individual's ability to address problems directly and thus perhaps cause more harm than good. And if the traumatic experience is that which is supposed to TEACH us (as you say), then it causes more harm than good because if the mind retracts, then the lesson has further impeded the ability for the lesson to be put to use.

If they are not accountable they are taught and shown not punished, your mixing up cleansing with punishment as well, they are not the same thing.

Yeah, I guess I've never been too clear about this thing. Could you explain your position on this?

I’m not really sure how this analogy ties in to anything I’ve said. If you were responding to a point I made please rephrase it.

On this one, I meant to indicate that (on the note of Julie) the inconsistency on how Julie, being little, is supposed to know that she has to "let go" of the pain or negativity of the paralysis, but not supposed to know yet how to do something relatively simple that adults can do. The former is a very abstract concept and escapes many adults, but the latter is basic operation in society and thought to be something that needs be taught to them. Essentially, if we think children cannot do simple societal things without being taught, why do we expect them to just "know" how to deal with complex abstract ideas that most people cannot fathom?

You are correct but are talking about a rare situation, I was stating that the majority of the time we are given a very clear warning before detrimental things do happen, in the cases where we are not that may or may not be something God intended. We can choose to learn from it or not in this life, we can also overcome it in the next, in the scheme of things it doesn’t matter

There you go...if in the scheme of things a life experience doesn't matter, then why bother going through it in the first place? It is inefficient. Besides, rare does not mean impossible, and the possibilites in the Universe outweigh the probabilities. Also, consider the validity of the warning...what good is it to warn someone of, say, stray golf balls, if one is nowhere NEAR a golf course? Or, what good is it to warn someone of something without giving a likely time and place of when it will occur. A warning is no guarantee of avoidance, and it may also cause someone to look out at the wrong times when they are not at threat, and thus cause them to not look when they need to.

A person with legs could not learn how to make do without them until they lost them (I guess they could if they really wanted to) but why would they? What exactly could a person whom hadn’t been through the same thing learn without paying the price. I was presenting a situation where someone didn’t learn a lesson, something bad just happened to them. The statement I was making was that she had the choice to overcome the situation or let it rule her life

On closer inspection, I see where I made the mistake. I thought you had said that the experience of paralysis was a good lesson to be learned...but you didn't. But, what i am also thinking is that with enough imagination or postulation, one might be able to learn about that situation without paying the price (we say pay the price as though there is a commerce or trade involved in experience as though the lasw of physics would not allow something to happen without it). With that in mind, most of my musings are null and void. However, on one note, Julie's adaptation would have only two outcomes, and neither of them would be good. If she overcomes her situation, she basically turns her back on the pain and suffering she went through, and lies to herself that anything happened...or she lets it rule her life and let it diminish her involvement in life, for which, you make it seem, as though she will be penalized for. The question still remains however, if life is worth living anyway (at least with the meanings that we think it possesses), or if it is worth living with a disability like that, seeing as how it would diminish her ability to develop her COMPLETE potential (no offense to those with physical disabilities...believe it or not I have no prejudice against you).

Again your assuming she would be punished for these things, the blood of Jesus would be sufficient to cleanse her it would only be a matter of how long it took her to accept it from him...People choose to be bullheaded and they choose to maladjust, we tamper with the engineering. And you still seem to be stuck on the idea that most non-christians will be punished temporarily, I never said that. So how would God be sadistic?

Again, see my earlier mention of reaction/action for the psychological stuff. You haven't yet shared in depth your perceptions of what the fuck Jesus really is; add that to your cleansing/punishment post. How would God be sadistic? Through inaction or judgment...fully aware if in fact responsible for engineering the situations that require people to suffer, react poorly and then make them suffer as a response to that.

You asked if control and pride were more important than existence to me. Is it true? Eh, in a way. I don't like to think about pride because I've seen enough "Outer limits" episodes to know that pride leads to trouble; so I try to renouce it. Control however, is very different. I don't like being completely without some power to change my surroundings/life/situation. Otherwise, the one holding the cards could do whatever they please at your expense and there is nothing you could do about it. If there is an alternative to learning besides suffering, God either doesn't see it or doesn't endorse it...but that doesn't it mean it isn't out there.

As far as renouncing God and his gifts goes, as I postulated, that still stands I think, as a valid action. Because it is less a matter of pride than it is about respect. If indeed, we were created with the "gifts" we were given, then these "gifts" (as in given) were never part of us but rather something that was included in the package as a sort of generosity that came from the "goodness" of his heart...which is insulting because it is demeaning to us, not to mention elitist. I would rather have no reason or intellect than to have it given to me by a superior power as part of its sense of charity; and I would rather not exist at all than have to live without reason or thought because to live otherwise is to be less than human or important (God considers himself to be important, is that pride? If so, he places it higher than existence); not only that, but to not exist at all would mean no being toyed with or controlled. Think about it this way...living with those "gifts" as "gifts" (in your sense) would be like being created as deliberatly retarded...by yourself you are able to do the simplest activity, and with the gifts you are able to do a little more, but even with both you still need to be supervised by others who can do all the sophisticated things that you are made incapable of doing...which is an absolutely UNFORGIVABLE offense.

My feelings of love have never had anything to do with mortality, in fact mortality makes it a scarier thing to have. If oblivion was what was in store for me, I would have less reason to love then if my soul were truly immortal.

Scarier probably because mortality puts a time limit on it...some lack of permanence. But what I meant to say about immortality was that after a long enough time, life would wear you down, then wear you near-insanity, and then probably to numbness, just like the Elves.

Perhaps he could if he wanted to. Knowledge of the good and evil existing in our world became necessary with the mortality of flesh, which is why they didn’t need to know it before then. Our flesh bodies the thing that dies, and the thing that loses its mortality.

Explain please...this doesn't quite make sense.

They had better things to talk about, and better things to do. If you remove the knowledge of evil from someone they tend to find other things interesting besides conflict.

What better things? How many possible conversations could three people have about a topic like love before they start treading on old ground? Besides, who guarantees that knowledge of Evil things ensures evil activity? Not to mention the fact that it's a bit unfair that God would know about Evil and not share it with Adam and Eve except in vague ways that just basically translate into "bad". By the way, when they did lean of Evil, how did their nudity factor into it? Is nudity evil? And if it was, what the fuck was God doing having them romp around naked in the first place? You'll notice he didn't get pissed until he found out that they KNEW they were naked.

They didn’t lie, Adam placated Eve, Eve placated the serpent. None of them accepted accountability for what they did, but no they didn’t lie.

In a way though, who's fault was it? Adam wouldn't have eaten unless Eve asked him to, and Eve wouldn't have eaten unless the serpent suggested it. So they were basically tracking it back to where it went. If they didn't lie, they didn't exactly say they didn't eat it, they just recapped what happened.

However by trusting the snake they believed God to be a liar thus removing their innocence for what satan said was contrary to what God said. Whom should they have believed?

The leaders of totalitarian governments try the same tactics to dissuade people from thinking outside the government's madates. Now if you were someone under that government's control and kept isolated from different things, how would you have enough material from which to discern if Big Brother was entirely the right guy to believe?

I suppose what this entire thing boils down to is the belief that the experiences on Earth and all things that exist on Earth are transitory and therefore unimportant when compared to the afterlife. However, this contrasts with many proclamations that what happens on Earth is important. If Earth is such a temporary place, and the negative events do not matter, then why are so many other things important? Why this mixing and matching? You notice how you say that the "negative" things don't matter but the "positive" things do. I won't touch on this until you give your psot on "cleansing" and "Punishment" but it seems like God/you are being selective to make everything seem alright...but is this because of the way it is or is it because doing so will ensure cooperation?

Another thing that seems to stand in the way is the fact that whether or not the negative things DO matter post-death, it does not change the fact that the HAPPENED. Regardless of whether Julie is bothered by her paralysis or not, it still DID happen to her. If someone strikes you unwarranted, you might learn to forget about it or not even care...but it DID still happen and that event was never balanced out. That unwarranted slap was never challenged and as a result, you allowed yourself to be exploited/injured and insulted and the other person was never made to answer for it. This basically DOES suggest that humans are (by Divine Law) supposed to bend over and let things happen to them and not fight back (loose term "fight").

As far as the next life goes, who cares? The diminished ability happens HERE on the mortal plane. To be placed here on Earth only to regard it as unimportant by comparison is wasteful because why put the effort into building a condemned place? I care about what happens HERE because HERE is where we are helpless. I may be a genocidal nihilist, but I still care about my species, even if they do disgust me by their narrow-minded thinking and rificulous behavior. I don't like seeing 40,000 years of evolution and 100,000 years of effort go to waste when our sun dies out. And if God does exist and is responsible for all this, then he has placed us (for good or for bad) deliberately and directly in harms way...and that rules him out as an ally in the fight against suffering. Which is why I would reject ANY help or insight he could provide, even if he DID exist.

 

[46and2]

”What I was arguing about was that in the course of our "learning" on Earth, most of our abilities and privileges are crippled and destroyed by our attempts to adhere to the Divine rules (I know you've explained this more in-depth, but the preliminaries first).”

I guess I just consider mans rules to be crippling in this life, not Gods and that’s probably where my confusion stemed from.

“The confusing aspect is whether this gain is proportional to the suffering or if the gain is a given regardless of experience on Earth (i.e. a default package that is earned no matter what).”

The latter would be the correct statement

“Doesn't this suggest that there is a materialistic aspect in the Divine, and that maybe God is a less-than humane (and unimaginative) spiritual capitalist?”

I really don’t know how to respond to that. I won’t disagree that God had personal gain in mind creating the world and humanity, but I don’t think that makes it a bad thing.

“(we should get august spies and dig_dug_dog in here)”

By all means


"Again, my mistake, as this is like the racer analogy. The broken hand does not represent immortality, it represents damaged functioning in Real Life. The idea is that experience has the potential to be crippling (not for all, but for some) and that since the law of probability doesn't play favorites, no one can say that they will not be a victim of it. Now, I presumed that your reasoning for expierience was that it helps us to learn new things that give us a greater spiritual understanding. However, the experience itself can cause damage both physical and mental (hence, the BROKEN HAND). These results of experience can cause psychological/physical damage that makes it more and more difficult to put the lesson to use in the Real World, because the real world may put the recent experience-ee in a situation where that handicap is going to impede their progress, and as a result, their FULL potential will not be used, which means that their time on Earth (for whatever purpose it is supposed to serve) will not be complete."

Well when the scope is limited to this life you are correct, most of our spiritual understanding will take place in the next.

“On top of that, if such a property of happenstance were engineered by God to happen in creation, then he deliberately created reality to be obstructive, wasteful and incomplete (hence flawed), which sends people on a life path that ensures them a lot of suffering in this life and the next (hence the sadistic argument).”

I’m still not clear as to what makes you think people will have a lot of suffering in the next life, I don’t believe they will, I’ll explain my position on it shortly. However if it is wasteful and incomplete it would serve no purpose in the next life, the experience does, thus it is not (wasteful), that was my point.


”Again, the flaws are there, as you said, for a purpose. But is this purpose ever explained? And even if it is so (and I'd love to hear them)”

They probably would be what we needed in order to learn; also I haven’t really expanded upon Satan’s involvement in the destruction of man (because I hate sounding like a tele-evangelist). He hates God therefore wants to destroy all which he has created, thus introducing destructive behavoir to mankind so it would destroy itself. He can’t physically touch us but he can pull our strings, and entice us. And would most likley be responsible for a lot of the flaws we now posses.

“God is still never called to answer for it, especially if he is responsible, and since all of creation would be under his eye, he would be. In this world, even if you do a good thing for a good reason, if someone suffers as a result of your machinations, you are held responsible and penalized for it...this doesn't happen to God. This is an discrepancy.”

Your mixing up mans laws with Gods, the most important thing he places value on is your heart, so yes your intentions do matter above everything else. God might just explain himself to you when you die, because you would no longer be seperated from him by a mortal husk.

“As far as the next life goes, who cares? The diminished ability happens HERE on the mortal plane. To be placed here on Earth only to regard it as unimportant by comparison is wasteful because why put the effort into building a condemned place?”

We condemned it on our own with lucifers help; it wasn’t that way until we made it happen. I know what your going to say “Well if God is all seeing why wouldn’t he have known the outcome”, he did know, and just to prevent us from going in circles on some of these points I will reiterate that it was necessary for us to understand what it was to have free will and be absent from the presence of God so we would know exactly what the alternatives were, and we would know what the price of freedom was, that without him we are indeed alone and in a meaningless existance. Just like unless you’ve lost the use of your legs temporarily you’ll never fully understand what it is to have to function without them, until it’s happened to you. You can try to put yourself in that siuation, you can try and imagine it, but you can never understand what it is to be without it until it happens to you.





”No, the BEST way to face a problem is to face it. And when we're young, that's how we do it (notice how kids have no tact on stuff like this?). But when people, not just children are traumatized, they either withdraw or retaliate, sometimes both, depending on how the brain reacts to protect the mind in a given situation. If someone withdraws, the brain probably does this to minimize exposure to uncertainty and other frightening things in order to prevent more traumatic experiences. The retaliation occurs to reclaim the sense of security that the trauma has taken from them. In both cases, these are the responses the human brain (a GOD creation according to you), and therefore, should be exempt from responsibility post-death.”

You’ve got me on this one, which is why I don’t always hold people responsible for the way they act. I only think that when they are being harmfull to others that they should be accountable for it in this life. If it be a result of the brains conditioning then maybe we should be reavaluating how we deal with criminals.

“And if the traumatic experience is that which is supposed to TEACH us (as you say), then it causes more harm than good because if the mind retracts, then the lesson has further impeded the ability for the lesson to be put to use.”

This was bad misscommunication on my part (I seem to be really good at that latley…..disregard, I’m just ranting about something else). Life as a whole is the learning experience, which carries over into the next life. We may or may not learn something from it in this life. But whatever the experience is we learn from it eventually.



“Essentially, if we think children cannot do simple societal things without being taught, why do we expect them to just "know" how to deal with complex abstract ideas that most people cannot fathom?”

I don’t expect them to just know I think that comes with being a good parent (which seem to be low in population these days). You should be able to teach them the abstracts (and show them how to think of abstract concepts) as well as the basics.


”There you go...if in the scheme of things a life experience doesn't matter, then why bother going through it in the first place?”

It does matter, it’s small in the scheme of things would have been a better way to word that. Again my misscommunication problem (arrrrggggg! Would tear hair out if he had any).

"Besides, rare does not mean impossible, and the possibilites in the Universe outweigh the probabilities.”

I agree with you on this.

“Also, consider the validity of the warning...what good is it to warn someone of, say, stray golf balls, if one is nowhere NEAR a golf course? Or, what good is it to warn someone of something without giving a likely time and place of when it will occur. A warning is no guarantee of avoidance, and it may also cause someone to look out at the wrong times when they are not at threat, and thus cause them to not look when they need to.”

If the warnings in the Bible were like that you would be correct, but they are the kind of things you can see coming from a mile away. It doesn’t go off and warn you about something that could happen to anybody no matter what they do. If that were the case you’d be right in saying that it isn’t fair. That’s why the Bible says “Don’t worry about tommorrow for you do not know what a day will bring.”


”However, on one note, Julie's adaptation would have only two outcomes, and neither of them would be good. If she overcomes her situation, she basically turns her back on the pain and suffering she went through, and lies to herself that anything happened...”

That’s not what I was suggesting at all, she also has the option to confront her pain and her suffering and come to terms with it, my fault though I forgot to factor emotional denial into the equation.

“or she lets it rule her life and let it diminish her involvement in life, for which, you make it seem, as though she will be penalized for.”

No not at all, the only penalization she gets is her own suffering in this life, caused by none other then her own way of dealing with the problem, rather then confronting it and overcomeing it.

“The question still remains however, if life is worth living anyway (at least with the meanings that we think it possesses), or if it is worth living with a disability like that, seeing as how it would diminish her ability to develop her COMPLETE potential (no offense to those with physical disabilities...believe it or not I have no prejudice against you).”

True they wouldn’t be able to discover there complete physical potential, but then again most non-handicapped people don’t discover that either (other wise we’d all be a bunch black belts in some martial art or olympic weight lifter or ………….I digress.) What about the mentally handicapped? I’ve noticed there not usually as bothered or insecure about their limitations as the rest of us, and tend to face their emotions a lot more positivley then most folks.


”Again, see my earlier mention of reaction/action for the psychological stuff.”
Well really the only way for us to prove are point on this one is to put somebody into a society that is completley at peace and harmony with one another, (pretty much impossible I know) and allow one of them to suffer a horrible accident and see what happens when the society reacts by encouraging the person to overcome and face his/her emotions about the subject and see if maladjustment happens. I’m still convinced that we are taught to adjust or maladjust by the society around us.

“How would God be sadistic? Through inaction or judgment...fully aware if in fact responsible for engineering the situations that require people to suffer, react poorly and then make them suffer as a response to that.”

Personally I believe Satan and humans make people suffer. He (God) engineered us to be succeptable to that right? Makes him responsible yes? Well as I said before have you ever considered that it might be what we wanted? There’s the three earth age concept of the bible (which I don’t fully understand myself yet, so I’m not going to say I believe it yet). It suggests that in the first earth age we were spiritual bodies (all of us) that dwelled with God, the second beginning when the first humans were put on earth. So it is very possible that we simply asked for this, however my current education withstanding you have me beat on this, my hats off to you sir.

”You asked if control and pride were more important than existence to me. Is it true? Eh, in a way. I don't like to think about pride because I've seen enough "Outer limits" episodes to know that pride leads to trouble; so I try to renouce it.”
Reason I said that was because that was just how your post appeared to me. Perhaps I misjudged it.
“Control however, is very different. I don't like being completely without some power to change my surroundings/life/situation. Otherwise, the one holding the cards could do whatever they please at your expense and there is nothing you could do about it.”
I guess that depends on whose in control, we all live in a controlled atmosphere on this planet, it’s done so by other humans instead of a supreme being, and also by the earths natural weather changes.
“If there is an alternative to learning besides suffering, God either doesn't see it or doesn't endorse it...but that doesn't it mean it isn't out there.”

God wouldn’t teach us how to suffer very little in a world of suffering if that were the case.

“As far as renouncing God and his gifts goes, as I postulated, that still stands I think, as a valid action. Because it is less a matter of pride than it is about respect. If indeed, we were created with the "gifts" we were given, then these "gifts" (as in given) were never part of us but rather something that was included in the package as a sort of generosity that came from the "goodness" of his heart...which is insulting because it is demeaning to us, not to mention elitist. I would rather have no reason or intellect than to have it given to me by a superior power as part of its sense of charity; and I would rather not exist at all than have to live without reason or thought because to live otherwise is to be less than human or important (God considers himself to be important, is that pride? If so, he places it higher than existence); not only that, but to not exist at all would mean no being toyed with or controlled. Think about it this way...living with those "gifts" as "gifts" (in your sense) would be like being created as deliberatly retarded...by yourself you are able to do the simplest activity, and with the gifts you are able to do a little more, but even with both you still need to be supervised by others who can do all the sophisticated things that you are made incapable of doing...which is an absolutely UNFORGIVABLE offense.”
Well with that logic you’ve basically explained why you don’t believe in a higher power. What I have I value, I could give a shit whether or not it was given to me. I wouldn’t be here in this flesh body if my Mom and my sperm doner hadn’t decided to have a second child. Somehow I don’t hate my Mom for anything. With that logic in mind everything you have was given to you when your parents (or whatever your situation may be) decided to have a child. You developed the rest of it on your own, with a little help from them. That’s how I look at God and I don’t think it diminishes my individuallity.



”Scarier probably because mortality puts a time limit on it...some lack of permanence.”
Exactly.
“But what I meant to say about immortality was that after a long enough time, life would wear you down, then wear you near-insanity, and then probably to numbness, just like the Elves.”
I could see that happening to an elf who decided to live among and befriend men. If I were an elf (sprouts pointy ears) I wouldn’t be befriending men for that very reason, and would simply stick to my own species. Because their lifespans would be about as long as mine, and I could procrastinate a hell of a lot more (sounds good actually).

Perhaps he could if he wanted to. Knowledge of the good and evil existing in our world became necessary with the mortality of flesh, which is why they didn’t need to know it before then. Our flesh bodies the thing that dies, and the thing that loses its mortality.

Sorry, I didn’t really expand on that, are bodies becoming flesh (mortal) we needed to know what was harmful and what was not (good and evil). That’s all I was saying.


”What better things? How many possible conversations could three people have about a topic like love before they start treading on old ground?”

How endlessley can little children play with mereley their imagination and not get bored? They really have little knowledge of good and evil.

“Besides, who guarantees that knowledge of Evil things ensures evil activity?”

By knowledge of evil we know what it is to harm another person, one could do this simply out of curiousity if nothing else. And to answer your question Satan Guarantees it simply because he wants to destroy us.

“ Not to mention the fact that it's a bit unfair that God would know about Evil and not share it with Adam and Eve except in vague ways that just basically translate into "bad".”

Well look what happened when they found out. He knew that Satan would try to use that knowledge to destroy them. I don’t think fairness is an issue in that case.

"By the way, when they did lean of Evil, how did their nudity factor into it? Is nudity evil? And if it was, what the fuck was God doing having them romp around naked in the first place? You'll notice he didn't get pissed until he found out that they KNEW they were naked.”

They realised that they were in flesh bodies, thus vulnerable to the elements of earth. Nudity isn’t evil unless you are outside and catching pneumonia or skin cancer. In a way they weren’t really “naked” (vulnerable) until they ate from the tree.

However by trusting the snake they believed God to be a liar thus removing their innocence for what satan said was contrary to what God said. Whom should they have believed?

”Now if you were someone under that government's control and kept isolated from different things, how would you have enough material from which to discern if Big Brother was entirely the right guy to believe?”

That analogy doesn’t work because their relationship was far more intimate then that of a mans with his government. This was a being that they loved and he loved Adam and Eve, very deeply, and they were very close. Most people don’t have that kind of relationship with their government.

”I suppose what this entire thing boils down to is the belief that the experiences on Earth and all things that exist on Earth are transitory and therefore unimportant when compared to the afterlife. However, this contrasts with many proclamations that what happens on Earth is important. If Earth is such a temporary place, and the negative events do not matter, then why are so many other things important?”

I never said life was unimportant, is the afterlife more important? I guess that depends on whether or not the journey or the destination is more important. Also I never said that the negative things weren’t important, everything is. All I said was that the negative things are faced and overcomed.

“Why this mixing and matching? You notice how you say that the "negative" things don't matter but the "positive" things do.”

Your misunderstanding me, but I can see where you got confused:

“The baggage I was reffering to was the negative effects of this life, the positive(whether or not they stem from negative experiances), things you learn do carry over.”

Notice where I said “negative effect”, not the experience itsself.

And this one as well:

“I never said the experiances themselves were purged, only negativity as a whole. We overcome these feelings rather then running away from them and setting up barriers. Thats part of what cleansing is. The memories cease to be unpleasant because we cease to be afraid of them.”

Again I’m reffering to the unpleasantness of the experience being overcome, not the experience itsself.


I won't touch on this until you give your psot on "cleansing" and "Punishment" but it seems like God/you are being selective to make everything seem alright...but is this because of the way it is or is it because doing so will ensure cooperation?
Please show me where I’m being selective then.

”Another thing that seems to stand in the way is the fact that whether or not the negative things DO matter post-death, it does not change the fact that the HAPPENED.”

Your right that it doesn’t change the fact that it happened, but so what? How do we know what exactly we’ll learn from it until we do die? And maybe we won’t learn something from everything, perhaps it was just an attempt from you-know-who to thwart something that could of benefitted us.

“Regardless of whether Julie is bothered by her paralysis or not, it still DID happen to her.”

And?

“If someone strikes you unwarranted, you might learn to forget about it or not even care...but it DID still happen and that event was never balanced out.”

How do you know it wasn’t balanced out by another person slapping the guy who slapped you?

“That unwarranted slap was never challenged and as a result, you allowed yourself to be exploited/injured and insulted and the other person was never made to answer for it.”

You have every right to slap the person back if they slap you, God would not of been worried about the defense of his children in countless cases in the bible if that were the case. “Turn the other cheek” was used in refrence to ministry and teaching. And to those who mocked them because of their beliefs. And besides they will answer for it, either in this life or the next (not neccessarilly punished, but they will definitley understand the wrong of what they did and feel shame.)

“This basically DOES suggest that humans are (by Divine Law) supposed to bend over and let things happen to them and not fight back (loose term "fight").”
Please read the previous paragraph in response to this.



”As far as the next life goes, who cares? The diminished ability happens HERE on the mortal plane.”

So?

“To be placed here on Earth only to regard it as unimportant by comparison is wasteful because why put the effort into building a condemned place?”

Again we condemned it on our with some help from Satan. I believe I answered this earlier.

“I care about what happens HERE because HERE is where we are helpless.”

Believe it or not I do too.

“And if God does exist and is responsible for all this, then he has placed us (for good or for bad) deliberately and directly in harms way...and that rules him out as an ally in the fight against suffering.”

As I said we chose this path, and WE are not really being harmed the machines that carry us are.
Now let me explain my view of the afterlife or “punishment” or “cleansing” or whatever in order to do so efficientley I will need to back track and give you some history (This will be a long one get comfortable):
1) We were created perfect, losing it after the fall of man (i.e. Adam and Eve)
2) Thus we were introduced to sin which separated us from God
3) For whatever the reason (you’d have me on this one because Iv’e never been able to figure out why exactly), when sin was introduced to us the presence of God became deadly to us, we would die if we were in his presence because he is a being of light. Thus that would probably mean that the devil would be the complete author of sin.
4) Now this being the case the dead would go to “Sheol” (which is commonly translated as hell), the abode of the dead, a place that was mereley kept as a holding place for the souls of the dead.
5) In order to allow us to come home (to “heaven” as it is commonley called) we had to have our sin washed away. Thus the coming of Christ, which most Christians believe him to be salvation from hell (eternal torment) while others believe him to be salvation from sin. At any rate in order for him to do so he had to come to this earth as a human and teach as a human and be sacraficed as one as well. Okay so what? Why? Why would he have to do it that way?
6) We have to go waaaaaaaaaay back before then to Abraham to awnser that, his tribe being the only who were righteous at the time, and hadn’t entirley turned there back on God (By that I mean hadn’t fallen into complete corruption). God made a covenat with Abraham (whom was childless and his tribe was dieing out) that his seed (sperm) would bring forth a great nation (insert crude joke here) if he did as God told him. Now to make a long story short Abraham was a very swell guy and did exactly what the Lord asked of him and he had a son (Isaac) with his wife. Now covenants of the time were always done in blood, meaning both parties would sacrafice a clean and undiseased lamb for the other person in the pact. On one day God asked for Abraham to live up to that bargain, but instead of a lamb he asked for his son. Now Abraham was about to kill his son when God stopped him (yes it was a test of faith). However God had to live up to his end of the bargain so that brings back to Jesus.
7)Jesus had to be sacrificed in order to fullfill that covenant as well as pay the price for our sins, thus rendering us perfect upon death. His blood is what cleanses us of our sins and our suffering, thus bringing understanding of ourselves and the world we lived in.
Now as for punishment:
I won’t deny that that the bible says that there are some who will be punished, but not eternally, this is a mistranslation, the word is “aionic” or “age-during”, to mean in the context of the greek temporary or until the end of the age. And those whom are described as being punished are simply described as “the wicked”. There are many verses taken out of context if you want examples I can provide you with a link that has an entire book on the subject that you can download free of charge. Or I’ll be happy to give you some in my next rebuttal but I’ve got typers cramp about now.
Peace
-Phil

 

[Admiral Trouser]

I shall admit it here and now before I go anyfurther: I have only just picked up on this thread, and I'm still wading through the excellent dialogues that the pair of you have written. Therefore, I shall keep my first contribution reasonably short, since I'm still trying to get a precise location on the focus of this discussion.

But I beleive that you're assessing God's role in human understanding, and the essential problem that is God's nature combined with human Free Will, and hence there "accontability" in regards to there actions upon this mortal plain. Please feel free to steer me along the path, however 😀

Well, here's my opinion on some of the above anyway:

We have a fundamental problem here...Christianity has a very defined, rigid set of properties which it applies to its traditional view of God, the most commonly-known being his omnipitence and omnipresence. Both of these come about because the Christian God is meant to be wholly detached from causality, since the notion that God could be affected by something outside of Himself would raise the possibility that he was caused by something other than Himself, which would then beg the question of what created God, and if he was created by something else is he indeed a God at all. Hence, he exists (supposedly) out of the time line to avoid this prickly issue, and therefore He sees past, present and future as a simultanious event that he already has full knowledge of prior to its actual happening.

In lamens terms, God is aware of everything at any given moment (onmipresence) since he created everything in the first place (omnipitence). Which leads some very astute people to ask why there is a notion within most Religeons, including Christianity, that humanity will be held accountable for its actions, and indeed, each person will be held accountable for there actions, when in truth there acts are not wholly there own: Being creations of a God that knew what they were going to do before they even did it, it sounds very likely that even the most despicable of murderers were unfortanate victims of fate. Especially when you add to the mix the notion that God, fully aware of these things snd more, has an unlimited and unrestrained ability to change these people for the better and prevent there harmful acts.

So we must assume that they are evil because God made them that way and intended them be that way, knowing fully what they were going to do at every moment in there lives, and being able to rectify there negative behaviour at any given moment as well. For all the arguments advocating that a persons personality and disposition are the result of life's traumas and experiences and cannot be attributed to a single cause or Being, not a single one of them can mount a decent challenge to the idea I have stated because none of them take the development of the human psyche away from the reach of an omnipresent and all-powerful God.
Technically speaking, he has the power to change each and everyone one of us for the better, and he could indeed program us so that we all lived in harmony and peace in one form or another. In short, no-one is seemingly responsible for there misdemeaners because we're all acting our parts in a grander play, forced to live our lives by reading a script that we cannot turn away from. Free-will is an illusion because that which controls us is so beyond our full comprehension that in everyday life we fail to recognise its there at all, and in the gap of our understanding that that leaves us with we place a notion of freedom and liberty.


Phew...after all that, I sure hope I'm sticking to the topic somewhat...

*resumes furious reading of thread*

 

[BigJim]

Free-will is an illusion because that which controls us is so beyond our full comprehension that in everyday life we fail to recognise its there at all, and in the gap of our understanding that that leaves us with we place a notion of freedom and liberty.

*coughcoughILLUMINATI!!!!!coughcough* 😀😀😀 Sorry 'bout that, I need some cough drops. 😉

 

[Admiral Trouser]

Meh, the Illuminati are mere mortals just like the rest of us BJ, and although you think that they are the ultimate deceivers, in truth the're just good manipulators. Obviously they don't have the power to actualy create free will, and therefore they have no way to remove it either. The're just very good at restricting it on a fair scale. Oh, and the whole illuminati theory isn't beyond our comprehension, an essential point in that quote of mine: Had we access to all the facts, no doubt we could understand the whole thing, since its merely a well-hidden conspiracy made of human mind. My point was that this whole God/Free will issue is pretty much out of our ball-park, so our nature gropes for the most logical substitute and bada-bing, we have Contra-Causal free will. Whoopee-freakin'-doo.

Illuminati. Hmm. Maybe....

 

[BigJim]

Meh, the Illuminati are mere mortals just like the rest of us BJ, and although you think that they are the ultimate deceivers, in truth the're just good manipulators. Obviously they don't have the power to actualy create free will, and therefore they have no way to remove it either. The're just very good at restricting it on a fair scale.

Admiral, what I'm about to say I really really mean; I'm not attempting to take the piss whatsoever.


Those comments of yours are quite probably some of the most inspired and perceptive I've ever seen typed on the TMF. They are damn true down to the last letter. The reason (I believe so anyway, I know that a lot of others think I've been smoking something illegal) that the "Illuminati" control us so easilly, is because humanity is only to eager to give it's damn mind, instincts and perception away. If we'd never allowed ourselves to be conned in the first place, then we would'nt be going through all what we are now.

All this means of course that humanity as a whole can end the shit tomorrow if it chooses to. Scary huh? The thought of having our destinys in our own hands after so long of someone else looking after and abusing it for us. True though, it could happen tomorrow; so long as everyone gets their heads out of the sand and doesn't allow themselves to be caught in the glaring headlights of an oncoming CNN.

 

[Deleted member 2452]

i lean toward the norse way of thinking

that is, god/supreme being/creator, breaths life into us, then gives us free will to do as we want, and the ability to grow strong. if we choose to bew good, we get a better next life, than if we choose to be an evil shit.
steve

 

[Admiral Trouser]

Cheers BJ, I never figured I could be inspiring. Its kinda nice to know when your thoughts connect with other people...

 

[BigJim]

Re: i lean toward the norse way of thinking

that is, god/supreme being/creator, breaths life into us, then gives us free will to do as we want, and the ability to grow strong. if we choose to bew good, we get a better next life, than if we choose to be an evil shit.
steve

That pretty much sums up my view too Steve. At the end of it, we're in control of what we get after this life.

 

[ShiningIce]

I wonder if God prays..........

 

[46and2]

Well Gentlemen

I thank you much for joining our conversation and my timing couldn't possibly be worse on that note as I will have to bow out of this conversation. I'm going to be taking a long hiatus from the online community considering my personal life at the moment is messed up beyond recognition, and I have to devote my time to changeing alot of things, I will be announcing it another post, however I will leave you with a few thoughts and please feel free to rebute them as I will come back to read what you folks have to say even though I won't be able to participate.

Amnesiac: Your an extremley intelligent man and I thank you for giving me the oppurtunity to fully examine my beliefs, and I hope all goes well for you.

BigJim: One thing I wanted to adress in the info you gave me regarding the existance of Jesus, you basically stated that there is no historical document placing his actual existance but I do have one for you I will post a follow up of an article I got from http://www.rationalchristianity.net/
I would reccomend you check the site out if you have time. Thank you for your info and willingness to talk about a subject that makes most people uncomfortable.

Admiral Trouser: I have heard that argument before and you make a very good point. Let me tell you the way I look at it:
God does create us with a precognitin of what will happen to us I won't deny that, however I don't believe God does all the programming, we do a great deal of it ourselves, and I believe God is conscious of who is conditioned and brainwashed to think a certain way, and being just he wouldn't do that kind of thing against someone unless they certainley knew and were fully aware of what they were doing. He says the "wicked" will be punished (and no I don't believe in eternal torment, go here for an in depth description if you'd like: www.tentmaker.org they have alot of literature on the subject), the wicked being those who willingly do evil knowing in full the ramifications (to other people) of their actions. My same thanks goes to you as it does the other two gentlemen.

I really do hate to have to leave at this time since there seems to be no other Christian (not that I feel they have to) who is willing to have these kind of debates tit for tat, and I do apologise. I give you all my best regards.
Peace
-Phil

 

[46and2]

Ancient Rabbinical References to Y’shua (Jesus)
Of all the ancient historical sources for Jesus of Nazareth, the least favorably biased would have to be rabbinic in origin. There are actually quite a large number of such references to Jesus of Nazareth. The problem with the rabbinical writings is that they use names like “such and such” and “so and so” or “that man” when they refer to Jesus of Nazareth. Consequently, some of the references are considered to be unreliable. During the middle ages and the early renaissance, the Talmud and Midrash were cleaned up with the removal of most of the references to Jesus of Nazareth.
As expected, the remaining references to Jesus are very unflattering. However, they do verify a number of important historical facts that the gospels proclaim regarding Jesus of Nazareth. As mentioned earlier by Shlomo Pines, no one d earlier by Shlomo Pines, no one doubted that Jesus was an historical figure up until about 200-300 years ago. The myth theory was created and perpetuated by atheists and agnostics and embraced by mainstream Judaism during the Renaissance.
In the Babylonian Talmud, which was compiled between the years 200-500 C.E., in Sanhedrin 43a, there is a fascinating reference to Jesus of Nazareth:
“It has been taught: On the Eve of the Passover, they hanged Yeshu. And an announcer went announcer went out in front of him, for forty days saying: ‘he is going to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray.’ Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.’ But, not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the Eve of the Passover.”

This is considered to be one of the very reliable rabbinical references to Jesus (“Yeshu”). The writer here verifies that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure, that he was crucified on the Eve of the Passover and that he did miracles, referred to as sorcery. The supernatural events surrounding the life of Jesus were not denied, but verified. The miracles of Jesus were simply eof Jesus were simply explained away as being from a demonic source, i.e., sorcery.
According to Jewish law it is illegal to perform capital punishment on the Eve of the Passover. However, this record verifies something that we wouldn’t expect to find in a rabbinical source, the fact that the Sanhedrin acted illegally in condemning and crucifying Jesus on Passover. Consequently, this reference is even more valuable in terms of validating the historicity of Jesus. Certainly, if any passage should have been edited from the Talmud, it should have been this one. The fact that a passage which points out an illegal action was retained in the Talmud makes it a credible and valuable source for the historicity of Jesus.
In the Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a, it says,
“Our Rabbis taught that Yeshu had five disciples: Matti, Necki, Netsur, Burni, and Toda.”

Now one of those names we can recognize, Matti, the disciple named Matthew. Again it is considered by historians to be another reliable reference in the Talmud for the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.
Maimonides
Maimonides was a very highly revered thirteenth century rabbi. There was a saying back during the thirteenth century that, “there was never a greater man than Maimonides except Moses.” He was given the nickname, Rambam.
Maimonides wrote a fourteen volume work called the Mishne Torah in which he made multiple references to the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. However, in the year 1631, Catholic and Jewish authorities censored the fourteenth volume, removing all refnsored the fourteenth volume, removing all references to Jesus. This was done because of multiple derogatory references to Jesus of Nazareth. During the Spanish inquisition certain members of the Catholic church used Maimonides’ work, and his negative references about Jesus, to justify the killing of Jews. Consequently, these references were removed from most of the extant volumes of Maimonides’ writings.
An excerpt from the uncensored versions of the Mishne Torah is a remarkable historical reference to Jesus.
“Jesus of Nazareth who aspired to be the Messiah and was executed by the court was also [alluded to] in Daniel’s prophecies (Daniel 11:14), as ‘the vulgar [common] among your people shall exalt themselves hall exalt themselves in an attempt to fulfill the vision, but they shall stumble.’ Can there be a greater stumbling block than Christianity? All the prophets spoke of the Messiah as the Redeemer of Israel and its Savior, who would gather their dispersed and strengthen their [observation of] the Mitzvot [the commandments]. By contrast, [Christianity] caused the Jews to be slain by the sword, their remnant to be scattered and humbled, the Torah to be altered and the majority of the world to err and serve a god other than the Lord. Nevertheless, the intent of the Creator of the world is not within the power of man to comprehend, for his ways are not our ways, nor are his thoughts, our thoughts. [Ultimately,] all the deeds of Jesus of Nazareth and that Ishmaelite [Mohammed] who arose after him will only serve to prepare the way for the Messiah’s coming and the improvement of the entire world [motivating the nations] to serve God together, as [Zephaniah 3:9] states: ‘I will make the peoples pure of speech that they will all call upon the Name of God and serve him with one purpose.’ ”

Here Maimonides, writing in the thirteenth century, verifies that Jesus of Nazareth was executed by the Sanhedrin, that he aspired to be the drin, that he aspired to be the Messiah, that he was referred to in the prophecies of Daniel as one of the sons of the lawless and that Jesus of Nazareth led many astray.
It is fascinating that Maimonides calls Jesus and his Church “a stumbling block.” I don’t think Maimonides remembered that the Tanakh states that the Messiah would be a stumbling block to both houses of Israel.
“He will be as a sanctuary, but a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense to both the houses of Israel, as a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.”
(Isaiah 8:14 )

 

[46and2]

For BigJim😛lease Read

This is from the website I mentioned, If you check this mans sources you will find them legit. Take care.


"Ancient Rabbinical References to Y’shua (Jesus)
Of all the ancient historical sources for Jesus of Nazareth, the least favorably biased would have to be rabbinic in origin. There are actually quite a large number of such references to Jesus of Nazareth. The problem with the rabbinical writings is that they use names like “such and such” and “so and so” or “that man” when they refer to Jesus of Nazareth. Consequently, some of the references are considered to be unreliable. During the middle ages and the early renaissance, the Talmud and Midrash were cleaned up with the removal of most of the references to Jesus of Nazareth.
As expected, the remaining references to Jesus are very unflattering. However, they do verify a number of important historical facts that the gospels proclaim regarding Jesus of Nazareth. As mentioned earlier by Shlomo Pines, no one d earlier by Shlomo Pines, no one doubted that Jesus was an historical figure up until about 200-300 years ago. The myth theory was created and perpetuated by atheists and agnostics and embraced by mainstream Judaism during the Renaissance.
In the Babylonian Talmud, which was compiled between the years 200-500 C.E., in Sanhedrin 43a, there is a fascinating reference to Jesus of Nazareth:
“It has been taught: On the Eve of the Passover, they hanged Yeshu. And an announcer went announcer went out in front of him, for forty days saying: ‘he is going to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray.’ Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.’ But, not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the Eve of the Passover.”

This is considered to be one of the very reliable rabbinical references to Jesus (“Yeshu”). The writer here verifies that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure, that he was crucified on the Eve of the Passover and that he did miracles, referred to as sorcery. The supernatural events surrounding the life of Jesus were not denied, but verified. The miracles of Jesus were simply eof Jesus were simply explained away as being from a demonic source, i.e., sorcery.
According to Jewish law it is illegal to perform capital punishment on the Eve of the Passover. However, this record verifies something that we wouldn’t expect to find in a rabbinical source, the fact that the Sanhedrin acted illegally in condemning and crucifying Jesus on Passover. Consequently, this reference is even more valuable in terms of validating the historicity of Jesus. Certainly, if any passage should have been edited from the Talmud, it should have been this one. The fact that a passage which points out an illegal action was retained in the Talmud makes it a credible and valuable source for the historicity of Jesus.
In the Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a, it says,
“Our Rabbis taught that Yeshu had five disciples: Matti, Necki, Netsur, Burni, and Toda.”

Now one of those names we can recognize, Matti, the disciple named Matthew. Again it is considered by historians to be another reliable reference in the Talmud for the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.
Maimonides
Maimonides was a very highly revered thirteenth century rabbi. There was a saying back during the thirteenth century that, “there was never a greater man than Maimonides except Moses.” He was given the nickname, Rambam.
Maimonides wrote a fourteen volume work called the Mishne Torah in which he made multiple references to the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. However, in the year 1631, Catholic and Jewish authorities censored the fourteenth volume, removing all refnsored the fourteenth volume, removing all references to Jesus. This was done because of multiple derogatory references to Jesus of Nazareth. During the Spanish inquisition certain members of the Catholic church used Maimonides’ work, and his negative references about Jesus, to justify the killing of Jews. Consequently, these references were removed from most of the extant volumes of Maimonides’ writings.
An excerpt from the uncensored versions of the Mishne Torah is a remarkable historical reference to Jesus.
“Jesus of Nazareth who aspired to be the Messiah and was executed by the court was also [alluded to] in Daniel’s prophecies (Daniel 11:14), as ‘the vulgar [common] among your people shall exalt themselves hall exalt themselves in an attempt to fulfill the vision, but they shall stumble.’ Can there be a greater stumbling block than Christianity? All the prophets spoke of the Messiah as the Redeemer of Israel and its Savior, who would gather their dispersed and strengthen their [observation of] the Mitzvot [the commandments]. By contrast, [Christianity] caused the Jews to be slain by the sword, their remnant to be scattered and humbled, the Torah to be altered and the majority of the world to err and serve a god other than the Lord. Nevertheless, the intent of the Creator of the world is not within the power of man to comprehend, for his ways are not our ways, nor are his thoughts, our thoughts. [Ultimately,] all the deeds of Jesus of Nazareth and that Ishmaelite [Mohammed] who arose after him will only serve to prepare the way for the Messiah’s coming and the improvement of the entire world [motivating the nations] to serve God together, as [Zephaniah 3:9] states: ‘I will make the peoples pure of speech that they will all call upon the Name of God and serve him with one purpose.’ ”

Here Maimonides, writing in the thirteenth century, verifies that Jesus of Nazareth was executed by the Sanhedrin, that he aspired to be the drin, that he aspired to be the Messiah, that he was referred to in the prophecies of Daniel as one of the sons of the lawless and that Jesus of Nazareth led many astray.
It is fascinating that Maimonides calls Jesus and his Church “a stumbling block.” I don’t think Maimonides remembered that the Tanakh states that the Messiah would be a stumbling block to both houses of Israel."
“He will be as a sanctuary, but a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense to both the houses of Israel, as a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.”
(Isaiah 8:14 )

 

[TummyDragon]

... that the "Illuminati" control us so easilly, is because humanity is only to eager to give it's damn mind, instincts and perception away. If we'd never allowed ourselves to be conned in the first place, then we would'nt be going through all what we are now.

All this means of course that humanity as a whole can end the shit tomorrow if it chooses to. Scary huh? The thought of having our destinys in our own hands after so long of someone else looking after and abusing it for us. True though, it could happen tomorrow; so long as everyone gets their heads out of the sand and doesn't allow themselves to be caught in the glaring headlights of an oncoming CNN.

ahh, but you can't lump humanity together as a whole. Humanity is comprised of neuron firing individuals, and the majority of the individuals have neither the intellectual potential, nor the ambition, nor the will to understand, create, or enact change, respectively. They possess the sole capacity to simply follow. This is the very carrot/stick basis of any religion and the underlying force of how it perpetuates as well as mutates.

To "remove the con" (the simplistic analogous model):

First an individual must be capable of comprehending the con. If condition one is true, then secondly, the individual must have the desire to be, for a neologism, "unconned". The second aspect then brings into play the necessity for the enlightened, ambitious individual to have the willingness to go against the flow, to stand out, to be ostracized by the mindless herd of the masses who are continuing on the simple course of following in opposition to the new course of said enlightened, etc, individual (this willingness also includes the possibility of the enlightened one being trampled by the herd, ending the process immediately). If conditions one and two are true, the enlightened, ambitious, willing individual must then bring this enlightenment to another individual, etc. The process, however, breaks down when the enlightened, ambitious, willing individuals run into the wall of the incapable, unambitious, unwilling masses. As the process inevitably breaks down, the enlightened can but simply offer another, different carrot and stick to lead (or con) the herd. Some of the herd will follow the new carrot, others will not. Now the herd is split. This splitting process continues over time ad infinitum (using the simple premise of the time line being infinite).

Thus humanity is incapable of true enlightenment. It can only be broken into factions (or new directions) of perceived enlightenment. It's driven by perpetual motion (leading and following) under the guise of stagnation (comfortable with the status quo, the herd is moving toward the carrot and away from the stick, the direction is fixed, seemingly stagnant) with some "enlightened" one/s using either carrot or stick to manipulate the motion (following or "believing" of the herd in the perceived enlightened one) in the fixed direction (ambition, will of the perceived enlightened) until the splitting process occurs again.

The illuminati would simply be another incarnation of the carrot/stick puppeteer.


TD

 

[BigJim]

Re: Well Gentlemen

I thank you much for joining our conversation and my timing couldn't possibly be worse on that note as I will have to bow out of this conversation. I'm going to be taking a long hiatus from the online community considering my personal life

BigJim: One thing I wanted to adress in the info you gave me regarding the existance of Jesus, you basically stated that there is no historical document placing his actual existance but I do have one for you I will post a follow up of an article I got from http://www.rationalchristianity.net/
I would reccomend you check the site out if you have time. Thank you for your info and willingness to talk about a subject that makes most people uncomfortable.

I hope all your personal upheavals go well for you Phil, I truly do. Perhaps you'll be able to return sometime. I really hope so. Good luck my friend.

I read the article you mentioned with great interest Phil, but there is one sticking point. I said that outside of religious texts, there is no documented reference to any character like Jesus. Well the document you posted an extract about, was the Talmud which is a Judaic religious text. Now my theory, (which I accept that very few believe) is that the major religions were created as prisons to stop people developing as fully as they can in a spiritual sense. That means that the Vedas, the Talmud, the Bible and the Koran (to name the ones I can think of right now) are all part of the "scam". I'll definatley digest more of the web-site in time, because I do love reading about diverse religions. That might even be why I gravitated towards my area of research. If you do come back to the online community any time soon, what I'd really like for the sake of a healthy debate, is for you to address particular points (in my arguments) and refute them. At the moment all we've got is another extract from a document, that I said was part of the conspiracy in the first place.

For purely selfish reasons, I really hope you return to the community my friend. You're a guy with a lot of knowledge about religion and I would very much enjoy an in-depth debate about it sometime. May you have the best of British Luck setting your personal life to rights and return here safely.

 

[BigJim]

Just thought of a footnote to add, for anyone reading the thread in general. You might think that a religious text mentioning a leading figure of a rival religion in a disparaging way, would be a good piece of corroberation for his existence, right? After all, why would any religion seek to confirm the existence of the lynchpin of another?

Well according to my theory, one of the biggest reason for there being so many religions (which is a bit of a puzzle when you consider that early people's trotted the globe just as much as we did! e.g. the Phonecians, Babylonians and Sumerians) is to divide the people of the world up and stop them uniting. Ridiculing Jeshua Ben Yosef as a sorceror in the Talmud, would be an ideal way to give the Judaic peoples a stick to bash the Christians with. All you'd ever have to do to incite a bit of racial hatred, is remind the people that the other lot in the next village worship a wizard! Hey presto, instant religious war.

 

[TummyDragon]

Re: Re: Well Gentlemen

...outside of religious texts, there is no documented reference to any character like Jesus.

The secular Jewish historian, Jocephus, does mention Jesus once in passing. This is the only secular mention of which I am aware that Jesus did exist. I will have to track down the actual quote.

TD

 

[BigJim]

ahh, but you can't lump humanity together as a whole. Humanity is comprised of neuron firing individuals, and the majority of the individuals have neither the intellectual potential, nor the ambition, nor the will to understand, create, or enact change, respectively.

I don't agree with that actually. Humanity is no more a a splat of individuality, than are single cells in the human body. Humanity does have a collective consciousnes, and when enough people stop giving their minds away to rhetoric dressed as patriotism and CNN bulletins, that collectiveness will go on a different path. It doesn't even need the majority of humanity to do it. Like an antidot going thruogh a diseased body, each cell will reach out and touch the next few, and each one of them will reach out and touch the next few.

We may all be potentially dynamic individuals, but we've also got a collective spirituality.

"There is now we, just one gigantic "I". That's what makes racism not only grotesque, but utterly frigging ludicrous."