Death Thread II: The Second Death.

[Borachio]

Right. Let's go with this one:

So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? from where then has it tares? He said unto them, An enemy has done this. The servants said unto him, Will you then that we go and gather them up?
But he said, Nay; lest while you gather up the tares, you root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather you together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Literally:

Monocultures are an appalling idea. Tares (weeds) in a wheat field serve a useful function in conferring some resistance to disease both at the root and stem levels. The good householder doesn't burn his tares (that's plain wasteful and polluting), he composts them in order to further enrich the soil for next year. The good householder is as much concerned for the soil ecology as he is for the harvest. It's a global interdependent system.

Figuratively:

This parable appeals very much to the sort of hell-fire evangelical who likes to see humanity in terms of goats (the damned) and sheep (the saved). This isn't nice at all. It implies some kind of judgement that no-one can be happy with. It's divisive. How about an inclusive attitude instead?

Oh, I don't know how about this?

In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you.

 

[Tigranes]

But if God allows suffering, albeit Man-created, when she could eliminate it, as surely she could if she chose, being omnipotent, how can she still be described as benevolent?

Oh I get it now. You are just having a good time here. You are playing psychology. You are trying to play Hercule Poirot, pretend to be all that clumsy and adorable, while trying to provoke the opponent with massive barrage of posts to derail the subject you don't really care about.

Patriarchy? Don't make your now famous slippers laugh. There was absolutely no discussion about "Feminist perspective" in this thread, before you decided to hide your tongue in the cheek, while typing "she" and "she" again and again -- thinking to your smiley self: "How about 'em, apples. Let me see his reaction on this Easter egg. Drug him into the completely unrelated feminist debate and have a little more fun with all these. "

I am very glad that you have stated elsewhere:

I don't think this thread's going anywhere, tbh. I only started it for the sake of balance.

This pretty much sums up your attitude. Please post more. I hardly have anyone to RD things anyway. On the second thought feel free to hurt me where it hurts the most. If one day you get bored playing with me, like you got bored with Civ 4, I still have Ziggy. He likes to say the last word, I just need to be careful not to offend his patriarchy.

 

[warpus]

Why not just admit that God probably has bigger plans in mind and that we aren't his final or best creation? A programmer builds many versions of the software he's building. If God is a tinkerer and/or builder, you can bet that he's been working on various projects throughout the eons. Just like I do when I play civ.

And of course he's not going to tell us that we're not special. Of course he's going to say that we're his favourite.

And I mean, not that I believe that he even exists, but if he does, we're probably just a tiny speck in the dust. If we were really so important, God would try a tiny bit to make our world better for us. But nope, he seems busy with something else. He's probably tending to his race of hyper intelligent giant chickens in another reality or something. His true chosen people. Maybe the only beings capable of getting into real heaven?

If I believed that God exists, these ideas would bother me slightly. It's not like they can be falsified.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

That's comforting to hear

I did ask a whole lot of times you see. So, I'm in. "ask Him and He will". Never responded though, so it must be that God pretty much approves of the way I live my life.

Thanks Tigranes, no Hell for Ziggy after all

I already have the last word. You have shown me I am peachy

 

[timtofly]

Why not just admit that God probably has bigger plans in mind and that we aren't his final or best creation? A programmer builds many versions of the software he's building. If God is a tinkerer and/or builder, you can bet that he's been working on various projects throughout the eons. Just like I do when I play civ.

And of course he's not going to tell us that we're not special. Of course he's going to say that we're his favourite.

And I mean, not that I believe that he even exists, but if he does, we're probably just a tiny speck in the dust. If we were really so important, God would try a tiny bit to make our world better for us. But nope, he seems busy with something else. He's probably tending to his race of hyper intelligent giant chickens in another reality or something. His true chosen people. Maybe the only beings capable of getting into real heaven?

If I believed that God exists, these ideas would bother me slightly. It's not like they can be falsified.

Would you throw human history into the un-falsified bin of ideas? How does mentioning stuff that may not exist explain human experience? Even if this God was out to destroy your enjoyment of mundane happiness, that would still be an involvement in your life?

 

[Borachio]

Oh I get it now. You are just having a good time here. You are playing psychology.

In fact, I'm being very serious indeed. Well, as serious as I ever get, anyhow.

This pretty much sums up your attitude. Please post more. I hardly have anyone to RD things anyway. On the second thought feel free to hurt me where it hurts the most.

Believe me, I only have your best interests at heart. But I don't believe for one moment that you're hurt at all. Far less where it hurts most.

edit: but let's not forget, it isn't me that's telling people they're going to burn in hell for all eternity, now is it?

If one day you get bored playing with me, like you got bored with Civ 4, I still have Ziggy. He likes to say the last word, I just need to be careful not to offend his patriarchy.

This patriarchy business is deadly serious. It's no joke, and no accident, that patriarchy only took off with monotheism.

 

[timtofly]

Patriarchy was around way before a certain monotheistic religion decided to interfere in the lives of human kingdoms.

 

[Borachio]

Was it? That's not what I've heard.

 

[warpus]

Would you throw human history into the un-falsified bin of ideas?

Do you mean unfalsifiable?

If so, I wouldn't, since we for example know with very solid certainty that World War II happened. As such, if you set out to prove that world war II didn't happen, there's tons of evidence from you to draw from.

If that's not what you mean, you'll have to explain.

How does mentioning stuff that may not exist explain human experience?

Sorry? Are you referring to my unicorn example here, and that they might have existed, but probably don't?

Lots of things that don't exist are part of human experience. but again I'm having a hard time understanding what exactly you mean.

Even if this God was out to destroy your enjoyment of mundane happiness, that would still be an involvement in your life?

True, but what's happening seems to be a lack of involvement as opposed to negative involvement.

 

[timtofly]

Was it? That's not what I've heard.

I have heard that there is no God, so it would seem that humans may possibly have been very patriarchal, and God slipped into the framework nicely.

This is, of course, not my view any more than a certain theology bolstered patriarchy by mere mention of a single God. There are some males who would prefer to control all aspects of life, and if removing half of the opposition on a mere technicality does that, then it has nothing to do with a belief in one God. I realize that it makes for a good excuse.

Do you mean unfalsifiable?

If so, I wouldn't, since we for example know with very solid certainty that World War II happened. As such, if you set out to prove that world war II didn't happen, there's tons of evidence from you to draw from.

If that's not what you mean, you'll have to explain.

That is what I was referring to. We are in agreement on that then.

Sorry? Are you referring to my unicorn example here, and that they might have existed, but probably don't?

Lots of things that don't exist are part of human experience. but again I'm having a hard time understanding what exactly you mean.

That seems to be a loose definition of experience then. We have done a lot of re-writing history in our imagination, so how would one even know any more what really happened and what did not? I may be biased but not everything in the Bible reads like a feel good story. I suppose that it could just be an imagined miserable experience without any great outcome. Perhaps even fairy tales used to have terrible endings and they have also been rewritten?

True, but what's happening seems to be a lack of involvement as opposed to negative involvement.

I think that it is reasonable for God to actually address certain people at certain times, to effect history. For the most part, though, God is hands on behind the scenes, but humans are still forging their own history. Perhaps 10% of history is God and the rest is humans making their own mistakes and living with the consequences.

 

[Tigranes]

I'd have to say, the Problem of Evil was a foundational step in my apostasy. I have other reasons now, but I've not seen any solutions for the problem of evil that doesn't suggest a weaker God than Anselm asked for.

This matter-of-factly confession strikes as both tragic and incomplete. Philosophical arguments are only the tip of the iceberg, when mind goes about rationalizing the reality which is already present in your heart. There are always some deeper personal experiences behind every true conversion or true apostasy rather than a dry logical argument. I would need to know you personally and intimately as a close friend or sibling to even begin commenting on those experiences.

In this format of OT forum I can only comment on logical argument: " how does a benevolent omnipotent God allow suffering in the world?".

How does He? By suffering Himself. The very same question that caused you to depart from Christianity causes me to go towards it in the presence of thousands religions and philosophies. Big Bang initial fluctuation does not suffer with its creation, Zeus does not suffer, Brahman does not suffer, Allah does not suffer -- Lord Jesus Christ does. Why?

Look at His Cross and ask Him, like the one who did not recognized Him did: "Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!" But the one who did said: "Jesus, remember me when You come into Your kingdom!" And behold: "I assure you: Today you will be with Me in paradise."

God did not create suffering in the beginning, Yesterday. Redeemed world will have no suffering either, Tomorrow. And He is curing suffering of the current intermediate world with His love and suffering, Today. Cure of the suffering is a process, instant freedom from suffering is euthanasia.

 

[Borachio]

How do you know that Zeus, Brahman, and Allah do not suffer?

You still don't answer the question how God allows suffering in the world in the first place, though, I notice. (Let me spell it out once more: either God intentionally allows suffering and isn't benevolent, or God cannot prevent suffering and isn't omnipotent.)

To say that God didn't create suffering but suffers himself doesn't answer it at all, does it? (And yup. I've heard this one before: Christianity is the only one with this or that characteristic. Usually said by people who are self-declared Christians of an evangelical nature with a very limited knowledge of other religions, I find. Strange, isn't it? It reminds me very much of people who say "Only human beings do this. And this distinguishes us from the animals. Inevitably, it turns out down the road that some animal or other displays precisely the same behaviour in proto form.)

You seem very sure of your ground. Iirc, you're a rather comparatively recent convert and weren't born into Christianity. Converts to any ideologies seem to be the most assured for some reason (I'm not very sure why this is). Most of the people discussing this with you here, I think, (certainly Mr Dust and myself) seem to have grown up with Christianity from birth. We do know it very well, I hope you realize.

It seems to me that people treat the Bible as if it's true by definition: here's the truth and truth it is. Which is very nice, I must say. I don't feel able to indulge myself in this, though. To me it's simply (!) a rather arbitrary collection of ancient writings (including interesting bits of undoubted wisdom, but an awful lot of wishy-washy stuff) by human beings , some of whom may well have believed they were inspired by a pan-dimensional entity of a not particularly well-defined sort. (How easy it must be to mistake the voices in one's head for the divine! So much more convenient and comforting than thinking one is delusional. "What? I'm hearing things? It surely must be God! The creator of the universe hasn't anything else to do but talk directly to me! And She can be absolutely certain of one thing: I'll report everything I hear without any errors at all. Oh dear me no!")

How do you feel about Mormonism, Mr Tigranes? They have an additional text which they believe (with all that certainty that we've come to know so well, and often fear, too) is inspired by God, and hence without question must be the truth. Do you agree with them? If you don't, why don't you?

 

[Tigranes]

How do you feel about Mormonism, Mr Tigranes? They have an additional text which they believe (with all that certainty that we've come to know so well, and often fear, too) is inspired by God, and hence without question must be the truth. Do you agree with them? If you don't, why don't you?

For the ordinary Christian any religious claim begins and ends with comparing author of the claim with Lord Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith brought glory to his name, not to the name of Jesus. He is the founder of his church, not Jesus.

 

[Tigranes]

You still don't answer the question how God allows suffering in the world in the first place, though, I notice. (Let me spell it out once more: either God intentionally allows suffering and isn't benevolent, or God cannot prevent suffering and isn't omnipotent.)

You don't want to read my answers. He is not allowing, He is fighting with it with His suffering and will end it. Cure of suffering is a process, not instantaneous event, like death.

 

[Oruc]

Was it? That's not what I've heard.

Are you just taking the piss? Look up how ancient greece treated it's women

 

[Borachio]

For the ordinary Christian any religious claim begins and ends with comparing author of the claim with Lord Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith brought glory to his name, not to the name of Jesus. He is the founder of his church, not Jesus.

So you don't believe in Mormonism, then, I guess. Fair enough. Neither do I. (Not that I don't like Mormons, though. Nor do I expect them to burn in hell for eternity.) And you don't think Mormons are Christian? Apparently they disagree.

You don't want to read my answers. He is not allowing, He is fighting with it with His suffering and will end it. Cure of suffering is a process, not instantaneous event, like death.

I do want to read your answers. I'd be delighted if you would answer my questions.

What you're saying now, it seems, is that God is in the process of curing suffering.

OK.

Can She cure suffering immediately if she so chose, or not? If She can, which presumably She can, being omnipotent, then She's not being benevolent. And if She can't, then She's not omnipotent.

We don't seem to be any further forwarder.

I like your "answers". Honestly, I do. But I think you're just wriggling.

 

[Tigranes]

Let's put on the record once and for all time: calling himself Christian, Mormon, atheist or agnostic do not determine your eternal destination. God does.
P.S.
If you keep using she please note my signature. With all due respect.

 

[Borachio]

Contra principia negantem non est disputandum?

That's some kind of foreign lingo, I think.

If there's no disagreement, there's nothing to debate.

There's a very serious point about patriarchy, btw. I wouldn't say that patriarchy was invented by monotheists, necessarily (though it may have been). It's just as likely that the patriarchy* saw a good chance to cement its power base through the use of monotheism.

*burgeoning, following the agricultural revolution in the Fertile Crescent.

edit: actually, Mr Tigranes, I'm getting the impression you think I'm attacking you personally in some way. I'm not. I'm in fact interested in these sorts of questions.

 

[El_Machinae]

This matter-of-factly confession strikes as both tragic and incomplete. Philosophical arguments are only the tip of the iceberg, when mind goes about rationalizing the reality which is already present in your heart. There are always some deeper personal experiences behind every true conversion or true apostasy rather than a dry logical argument. I would need to know you personally and intimately as a close friend or sibling to even begin commenting on those experiences.

Yes, my personal experience can be summed up 'stuff happened and the Problem of Evil became (in my opinion) a legitimate counterpoint to the idea of the Christian god'

You'll note that an uncaring Creator is not affected by the argument. It's only when you start trying to suggest there are additional aspects to the god that the PoE matters.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

To avoid the He She bonanza I try to be consistent in using "it".