There is only one thing that matters and it is Jesus Christ

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > There is only one thing that matters and it is Jesus Christ

«‹›316 »

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

steinrokkan posted:

Yes, all people are sinners. That's where faith comes in. If your outlook is cynical and you think that God is trying to find a reason to punish you (which really makes no sense), I guess it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I don't think it's completely unreasonable when you consider the behavior of God throughout the Bible. As for it being a self fulfilling prophecy, what, now you can earn a ticket to eternal torment for having a pouty face?

# ? Dec 1, 2014 01:10

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 5, 2024 16:58

Kyrie eleison: Jan 26, 2013; by Ralp

Nessus posted:

Did Jesus know all of this from the time immemorial of his existence? That has to be kind of weird. "I'm literally the same as this guy, except I exist differently so that I can become like an entity he/we will be creating in a while, suffer horribly and die, and this will save somewhere between none or all of them from the eternal torment which I/we will be creating shortly."

Did God create Hell? Or was that on Satan?

Yes Jesus always knew since the beginning of time. And God created Hell and Satan.

# ? Dec 1, 2014 01:10

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Kyrie eleison posted:

Yes Jesus always knew since the beginning of time. And God created Hell and Satan.

So why is it necessary to have what is essentially a duplicate God, who is only distinct in that at some point he will go down and die horribly? This doesn't even mean that Jesus could not share in the divine, could not be (to borrow a Hindu concept) an avatar of God - but instead it is so necessary he specifically be identical in each and every way?

And what about the Holy Spirit??

When God created Hell, it was with the full and certain knowledge of just how many of his future creations would be suffering in there, forever, right?

# ? Dec 1, 2014 01:13

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Nessus posted:

But Jesus is fully God, who is omnipresent and omnipotent. If Jesus is not extant in the human world, at least in the sense that God is, then Jesus is less than God, at which point all this trinity poo poo starts getting questionable. Or can God withdraw his existence (not necessarily his protection) from certain things?

Jesus is up in Heaven yo. For now at least.

# ? Dec 1, 2014 01:15

Kyrie eleison: Jan 26, 2013; by Ralp

Nessus posted:

So why is it necessary to have what is essentially a duplicate God, who is only distinct in that at some point he will go down and die horribly? This doesn't even mean that Jesus could not share in the divine, could not be (to borrow a Hindu concept) an avatar of God - but instead it is so necessary he specifically be identical in each and every way?

And what about the Holy Spirit??

When God created Hell, it was with the full and certain knowledge of just how many of his future creations would be suffering in there, forever, right?

He is not a duplicate God, he is God. He is the Creator. The Holy Spirit is also God. Yes He must have known how many people would end up in Hell.

# ? Dec 1, 2014 01:23

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Nintendo Kid posted:

Just to be clear, Jesus doesn't quite exist in the human world between ascending to heaven in 30 something AD and whenever the second coming happens.

Jesus of Nazareth: The Johto Journeys

# ? Dec 1, 2014 01:23

Twelve by Pies: May 4, 2012; Again a very likpatous story

steinrokkan posted:

Christianity abhors pain and sorrow as detrimental to one's spirituality

Actually that isn't true at all.

2 My brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of any kind, consider it nothing but joy, 3 because you know that the testing of your faith produces endurance; 4 and let endurance have its full effect, so that you may be mature and complete, lacking in nothing. - James 1:2-4

So I'm still not sure what you're saying exactly, I'm not sure if you're pushing a "flesh is bad/evil, spirit is good" because the bible definitely never states that.

# ? Dec 1, 2014 01:23

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

SedanChair posted:

Jesus of Nazareth: The Johto Journeys

Pretty much true.

# ? Dec 1, 2014 01:24

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

Who What Now posted:

It's a combination of all three, actually. I was taught that certain things were good, generally those that promote wellness and happiness, and that certain things were bad, generally those that promote physical or emotional harm. Do note that those are generalities and not always applicable. And, as a socially evolved species, we are predisposed from birth with the ability to empathize with others and predisposition to want those around me to be successful alongside me rather than only thinking about myself.

And so I'm able to take these generalities and predispositions and deduce from them judgements about what would be better or worse for myself, for my immediate group, and for society as a whole. And this is a process that you yourself, and every other person on earth (that isn't fundamentally brain damaged in some way) makes moral judgements.

What moral teachings do you think it is necessary to be learned and what morals are natural? I don't deny that humans have a natural empathy for those within their immediate community, but that has always seemed useless as a basis for what we would consider morality. Humans obviously don't need learned morality to keep them from say, murdering those around them- their family or immediate community. That natural empathy doesn't seem to extend to those outside the limits of people within one's community though.

Also, what is the logical basis for morality? I can see how you could start with a moral baseline like, 'all humans should have equal access to happiness' and logically determine what the next step would be to realize this morality, but what role does logic play in the formation of that moral baseline?

Miltank fucked around with this message at 01:33 on Dec 1, 2014

# ? Dec 1, 2014 01:25

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

Dilkington posted:

The most learned person I know turned me on to this one:

Would the fall still have occured if Eve had eaten a different fruit, mistaking it for the one God forbade? That's interesting in and of itself.

But let's assume the answer is "yes." The actual eating of the fruit was irrelevant to God.

But why then did God not cast them out as soon as the intention was fixed in Eve's mind?

Because the fruit of 'knowledge of good and evil' is a metaphor for sentience? :v:

# ? Dec 1, 2014 01:31

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment that I'm alive, I pray for death!

Miltank posted:

Earth is not a testing ground. Evil is "permitted" by God because it has already been resolved.

I'll admit to being surprised; of all the threads I never expected to see a version of the bitcoiner defense*, this ranked about dead last.

_{*"It's in the wiki, therefore it's already solved!"}

# ? Dec 1, 2014 01:34

Sharkie: Feb 4, 2013; by Fluffdaddy

steinrokkan posted:

Christianity abhors pain and sorrow as detrimental to one's spirituality, but afaik willingly bearing the burden of physical frustration isn't necessarily seen as a bad thing?

steinrokkan posted:

Maybe the poor man's suffering was at the same time the moment that sealed the eternal fate of those around him who lacked the charity to help him, and thus he played role in a much greater circle of justice than was apparent? Maybe Christians should be ready and happy to accept such a fate as it would diminish the role of flesh in their lives? Nobody knows.

Christians abhor pain and sorrow except they should also be ready and happy to accept it. That is a sane and logical worldview....NOT. I'm also lolling at how God created the world and is omnipotent but also he's not omnipotent and is bound by the inscrutable laws of his own creation...like he built a cage for himself and is now trapped in it.

I'm also still waiting to hear why God was willing and able to kill almost all life on earth but couldn't be bothered to lightning-bolt some concentration camp guards and Mengele.

Sharkie fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Dec 1, 2014

# ? Dec 1, 2014 01:34

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Twelve by Pies posted:

Actually that isn't true at all.

2 My brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of any kind, consider it nothing but joy, 3 because you know that the testing of your faith produces endurance; 4 and let endurance have its full effect, so that you may be mature and complete, lacking in nothing. - James 1:2-4

So I'm still not sure what you're saying exactly, I'm not sure if you're pushing a "flesh is bad/evil, spirit is good" because the bible definitely never states that.

Well, yes, that's what I was trying to say: That it is a Christian ideal to take what would be considered discomfort with pleasure. But to suffer without the backing of zeal seems to be seen as a curse:

quote:

Whether pain deprives one of the power to learn?
(...)
Augustine says (Soliloq. i, 12): "Although during those days I was tormented with a violent tooth-ache, I was not able to turn over in my mind other things than those I had already learnt; and as to learning anything, I was quite unequal to it, because it required undivided attention."

I answer that, Since all the powers of the soul are rooted in the one essence of the soul, it must needs happen, when the intention of the soul is strongly drawn towards the action of one power, that it is withdrawn from the action of another power: because the soul, being one, can only have one intention. The result is that if one thing draws upon itself the entire intention of the soul, or a great portion thereof, anything else requiring considerable attention is incompatible therewith.

Now it is evident that sensible pain above all draws the soul's attention to itself; because it is natural for each thing to tend wholly to repel whatever is contrary to it, as may be observed even in natural things. It is likewise evident that in order to learn anything new, we require study and effort with a strong intention, as is clearly stated in Prov. 2:4,5: "If thou shalt seek wisdom as money, and shall dig for her as for a treasure, then shalt thou understand learning" [Vulg: 'the fear of the Lord']. Consequently if the pain be acute, man is prevented at the time from learning anything: indeed it can be so acute, that, as long as it lasts, a man is unable to give his attention even to that which he knew already. However a difference is to be observed according to the difference of love that a man has for learning or for considering: because the greater his love, the more will he retain the intention of his mind so as to prevent it from turning entirely to the pain.
(...)

Whether the effect of sorrow or pain is to burden the soul?
(...)
, Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xix.] and Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 14) speak of "depressing sorrow."

I answer that, The effects of the soul's passions are sometimes named metaphorically, from a likeness to sensible bodies: for the reason that the movements of the animal appetite are like the inclinations of the natural appetite. And in this way fervor is ascribed to love, expansion to pleasure, and depression to sorrow. For a man is said to be depressed, through being hindered in his own movement by some weight. Now it is evident from what has been said above (Question [23], Article [4]; Question [25], Article [4]; Question [36], Article [1]) that sorrow is caused by a present evil: and this evil, from the very fact that it is repugnant to the movement of the will, depresses the soul, inasmuch as it hinders it from enjoying that which it wishes to enjoy. And if the evil which is the cause of sorrow be not so strong as to deprive one of the hope of avoiding it, although the soul be depressed in so far as, for the present, it fails to grasp that which it craves for; yet it retains the movement whereby to repulse that evil. If, on the other hand, the strength of the evil be such as to exclude the hope of evasion, then even the interior movement of the afflicted soul is absolutely hindered, so that it cannot turn aside either this way or that. Sometimes even the external movement of the body is paralyzed, so that a man becomes completely stupefied.
(...)

Whether sorrow is more harmful to the body than the other passions of the soul?
(...)
It is written (Prov. 17:22): "A joyful mind maketh age flourishing: a sorrowful spirit drieth up the bones": and (Prov. 25:20): "As a moth doth by a garment, and a worm by the wood: so the sadness of a man consumeth the heart": and (Ecclus. 38:19): "Of sadness cometh death."

I answer that, Of all the soul's passions, sorrow is most harmful to the body. The reason of this is because sorrow is repugnant to man's life in respect of the species of its movement, and not merely in respect of its measure or quantity, as is the case with the other passions of the soul. For man's life consists in a certain movement, which flows from the heart to the other parts of the body: and this movement is befitting to human nature according to a certain fixed measure. Consequently if this movement goes beyond the right measure, it will be repugnant to man's life in respect of the measure of quantity; but not in respect of its specific character: whereas if this movement be hindered in its progress, it will be repugnant to life in respect of its species.

Now it must be noted that, in all the passions of the soul, the bodily transmutation which is their material element, is in conformity with and in proportion to the appetitive movement, which is the formal element: just as in everything matter is proportionate to form. Consequently those passions that imply a movement of the appetite in pursuit of something, are not repugnant to the vital movement as regards its species, but they may be repugnant thereto as regards its measure: such are love, joy, desire and the like; wherefore these passions conduce to the well-being of the body; though, if they be excessive, they may be harmful to it. On the other hand, those passions which denote in the appetite a movement of flight or contraction, are repugnant to the vital movement, not only as regards its measure, but also as regards its species; wherefore they are simply harmful: such are fear and despair, and above all sorrow which depresses the soul by reason of a present evil, which makes a stronger impression than future evil.

# ? Dec 1, 2014 01:38

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Sharkie posted:

Christians abhor pain and sorrow except they should also be ready and happy to accept it. That is a sane and logical worldview....NOT. I'm also lolling at how God created the world and is omnipotent but also he's not omnipotent and is bound by the inscrutable laws of his own creation...like he built a cage for himself and is now trapped in it.

I'm also still waiting to hear why God was willing and able to kill almost all life on earth but couldn't be bothered to lightning-bolt some concentration camp guards and Mengele.

Many religions including Confucianism and strains of Buddhism consider radical self-abnegation to be a positive rather than painful, destructive act. It isn't contradictory at all.

# ? Dec 1, 2014 01:40

Sharkie: Feb 4, 2013; by Fluffdaddy

steinrokkan posted:

Many religions including Confucianism and strains of Buddhism consider radical self-abnegation to be a positive rather than painful, destructive act. It isn't contradictory at all.

Self-abnegation isn't involuntarily starving to death before leaving your children orphans, or burning in car wreckage, or Alzheimer's, etc. etc.

# ? Dec 1, 2014 01:45

Kyrie eleison: Jan 26, 2013; by Ralp

It's always the same thing... "God is immoral!"

This really is the essence of the objection. I think people care about this more than any "lack of proof" issue with God.

I mean, people say that God is immoral even when he kills a poor innocent fig tree. Almost anything he does is immoral, by their reckoning. Let alone things like allowing evil to exist.

You should all read that book of Job you keep scoffing about. You don't get to judge God. He does what he wants to you and that's it. And you have to have faith that He is doing it for some ultimately good purpose.

Once you accept this undeniable reality of the world, things make a lot more sense, including how to adapt to this reality. You can learn to be relatively comfortable in this human condition instead of constantly complaining about how unfair it is. You don't have to live in constant torment. Just accept the truth.

# ? Dec 1, 2014 01:54

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

Kyrie eleison posted:

It's always the same thing... "God is immoral!"

This really is the essence of the objection. I think people care about this more than any "lack of proof" issue with God.

I mean, people say that God is immoral even when he kills a poor innocent fig tree. Almost anything he does is immoral, by their reckoning. Let alone things like allowing evil to exist.

You should all read that book of Job you keep scoffing about. You don't get to judge God. He does what he wants to you and that's it. And you have to have faith that He is doing it for some ultimately good purpose.

Once you accept this undeniable reality of the world, things make a lot more sense, including how to adapt to this reality. You can learn to be relatively comfortable in this human condition instead of constantly complaining about how unfair it is. You don't have to live in constant torment. Just accept the truth.

There's nothing undeniable though about it, it's just speculation. You pretty much have to buy into it already, the whole idea that God is good. Would it be easy to read the Bible without preconceived notions and see God as the good guy?

# ? Dec 1, 2014 01:57

Kyrie eleison: Jan 26, 2013; by Ralp

Panzeh posted:

There's nothing undeniable though about it, it's just speculation. You pretty much have to buy into it already, the whole idea that God is good. Would it be easy to read the Bible without preconceived notions and see God as the good guy?

What I'm saying is undeniable is the simple fact that we are at the total mercy of God. He can do whatever he wants to us for any reason. He can cast us into Hell if he wants.

You are free to hate God, and doubt his will, but if you do, you will be miserable all of your life, and you will be condemned by him. But if you love God, then He will love you. Believing in His love is your only hope.

# ? Dec 1, 2014 02:02

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Kyrie eleison posted:

What I'm saying is undeniable is the simple fact that we are at the total mercy of God. He can do whatever he wants to us for any reason. He can cast us into Hell if he wants.

You are free to hate God, and doubt his will, but if you do, you will be miserable all of your life, and you will be condemned by him. But if you love God, then He will love you. Believing in His love is your only hope.

Well that's... despairing.

# ? Dec 1, 2014 02:04

Sancho: Jul 18, 2003

Yes read Job to learn God is a swell woman.

# ? Dec 1, 2014 02:05

Sharkie: Feb 4, 2013; by Fluffdaddy

Kyrie eleison posted:

It's always the same thing... "God is immoral!"

This really is the essence of the objection. I think people care about this more than any "lack of proof" issue with God.

I mean, people say that God is immoral even when he kills a poor innocent fig tree. Almost anything he does is immoral, by their reckoning. Let alone things like allowing evil to exist.

You should all read that book of Job you keep scoffing about. You don't get to judge God. He does what he wants to you and that's it. And you have to have faith that He is doing it for some ultimately good purpose.

Once you accept this undeniable reality of the world, things make a lot more sense, including how to adapt to this reality. You can learn to be relatively comfortable in this human condition instead of constantly complaining about how unfair it is. You don't have to live in constant torment. Just accept the truth.

Same but with Marduk. Just accept that he slew Tiamat for the good of all and you no longer have to live in torment.

Kyrie eleison posted:

You are free to hate God, and doubt his will, but if you do, you will be miserable all of your life, and you will be condemned by him. But if you love God, then He will love you. Believing in His love is your only hope.

I think the "faith is the only thing that prevents me from killing myself" person is projecting a little here!

# ? Dec 1, 2014 02:06

Twelve by Pies: May 4, 2012; Again a very likpatous story

steinrokkan posted:

Well, yes, that's what I was trying to say: That it is a Christian ideal to take what would be considered discomfort with pleasure. But to suffer without the backing of zeal seems to be seen as a curse:

Okay, sure, I'll grant you that, but then I'm still confused as to your original point which was that "Maybe Christians should be ready and happy to accept such a fate as it would diminish the role of flesh in their lives." One, Christians are already told by James to rejoice in trials and tribulations as it strengthens their faith and makes us better people. Two, I'm still not sure what you mean by "diminish the role of flesh."

Kyrie eleison posted:

What I'm saying is undeniable is the simple fact that we are at the total mercy of God. He can do whatever he wants to us for any reason. He can cast us into Hell if he wants.

You are free to hate God, and doubt his will, but if you do, you will be miserable all of your life, and you will be condemned by him. But if you love God, then He will love you. Believing in His love is your only hope.

Like I read this and it seems like the poo poo that a white landowner would say to a black slave, which I don't think is a good thing in the eyes of almost anybody who has any sort of empathy.

Seriously I'm a Christian and the idea that this is how we should view God, as some sort of ultimate dictator who doesn't give a gently caress about you and can toy with you just for shits and giggles is horrifying.

# ? Dec 1, 2014 02:11

Kyrie eleison: Jan 26, 2013; by Ralp

We are talking about the Creator of the Universe here. The being who gave you life and everything you have in it. Who knows your heart and your fate. A person who you are supposed to supplicate yourself before and worship and give offerings to, to pray to and do penance for. He is your master and your Lord. You are his slave. Dictators are merely ash compared to him.

# ? Dec 1, 2014 02:17

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

Kyrie is correct that we should just accept that God is goodness. He is incorrect in claiming that we ought to accept God as he is presented in the OT scriptures as that goodness. God's character as man can understand it was revealed by his time as a human on earth.

# ? Dec 1, 2014 02:22

Twelve by Pies: May 4, 2012; Again a very likpatous story

My mom and dad also gave me life but if someone told me that my dad could chain me up in the basement and starve me and I would have no reason to question him because he is responsible for my being born and he is my father and has power over me, I think you can see why any rational and not insane or sociopathic person would go "Holy poo poo that's horrifying and evil to believe that."

# ? Dec 1, 2014 02:23

Horseshoe theory: Mar 7, 2005

Kyrie eleison posted:

He is your master and your Lord. You are his slave.

Sorry, not into sadomasochism.

# ? Dec 1, 2014 02:24

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Kyrie eleison posted:

We are talking about the Creator of the Universe here. The being who gave you life and everything you have in it. Who knows your heart and your fate. A person who you are supposed to supplicate yourself before and worship and give offerings to, to pray to and do penance for. He is your master and your Lord. You are his slave. Dictators are merely ash compared to him.

I think I've found your problem here, you've confused God with someone else entirely, namely Darkseid.

http://imgur.com/a/3Ql8w

This should clear up the confusion. I think Jesus gets this a lot so He should be OK with that.

# ? Dec 1, 2014 02:26

Twelve by Pies: May 4, 2012; Again a very likpatous story

Miltank posted:

Kyrie is correct that we should just accept that God is goodness. He is incorrect in claiming that we ought to accept God as he is presented in the OT scriptures as that goodness. God's character as man can understand it was revealed by his time as a human on earth.

I think the major problem with that is that Jesus quoted the OT pretty frequently.

# ? Dec 1, 2014 02:27

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

Does Islam have a bunch of cool paradoxes like Christianity does or is it more streamlined?

# ? Dec 1, 2014 02:28

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Miltank posted:

Does Islam have a bunch of cool paradoxes like Christianity does or is it more streamlined?

It takes much of the old and new testaments at face value, and much of what's later added through Mohammed doesn't de-contradictionize things.

# ? Dec 1, 2014 02:29

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

Twelve by Pies posted:

I think the major problem with that is that Jesus quoted the OT pretty frequently.

Well he was a Jew..

# ? Dec 1, 2014 02:32

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Miltank posted:

Well he was a Jew..

And look how they treated him!

# ? Dec 1, 2014 02:33

Sharkie: Feb 4, 2013; by Fluffdaddy

Nessus posted:

I think I've found your problem here, you've confused God with someone else entirely, namely Darkseid.

http://imgur.com/a/3Ql8w

This should clear up the confusion. I think Jesus gets this a lot so He should be OK with that.

I'm the creepy version of Mary Marvel and I can confirm that this is legit. Darkseid is.

# ? Dec 1, 2014 02:35

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Kyrie eleison posted:

But if you love God, then He will love you.

Unless he made you to fail, on purpose. Then he'll harden your heart.

# ? Dec 1, 2014 02:41

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Miltank posted:

What moral teachings do you think it is necessary to be learned and what morals are natural? I don't deny that humans have a natural empathy for those within their immediate community, but that has always seemed useless as a basis for what we would consider morality. Humans obviously don't need learned morality to keep them from say, murdering those around them- their family or immediate community. That natural empathy doesn't seem to extend to those outside the limits of people within one's community though.

I'm not sure. I believe that the vast majority of people are naturally far more moral than even they give themselves credit for. I'd say that most people have a natural aversion to seeing human suffering or injustice and would willingly try to stop or at least alleviate any such suffering if they reasonably had the power to do so. Naturally this is where things like the government comes in, taking a portion from everyone's ability and combining it to tackle larger issues. But that's neither here nor there.

So I really can't tell you what morals I feel are natural and which need to be taught, but it doesn't hurt to instill all of them into society to teach those that have no understanding of them or reinforce their importance to those that do. Most of it are basic things such as promoting health and wellness and minimizing harm and moving up from there to more complex moral quandaries to help people weigh actions that have both morally good and morally bad elements and to properly assess which are which and how to approach them. It's not as simple as giving people a list of "these things are bad, and these things are good", but rather giving people the necessary tools to determine for themselves which is which. And then we, as a society, then come to a consensus based on all of your findings.

Miltank posted:

Also, what is the logical basis for morality? I can see how you could start with a moral baseline like, 'all humans should have equal access to happiness' and logically determine what the next step would be to realize this morality, but what role does logic play in the formation of that moral baseline?

There is not purely logical basis to morality. You have to accept first things like "being fed is generally preferable than going hungry", "health is generally preferable to illness", "pleasure is generally preferable to pain", "life is generally preferable to death", ect, ect. And I suppose you could say that those are all logical extensions of our survival instinct but, again, I feel that those are universal to all people. And from those you can say "I do not wish to be robbed, ergo I will not rob people so as to give them no reason to rob me". And from there we can keep taking more and more steps until we have a code of morality.

But it's not like people have to actually sit down one day and strain themselves like they're constipated to determine these things. By and large they are done automatically and without use realizing it. Although people should take the time to examine the conclusions that they come up with and why they did from time to time.

# ? Dec 1, 2014 02:41

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

Kyrie eleison posted:

We are talking about the Creator of the Universe here. The being who gave you life and everything you have in it. Who knows your heart and your fate. A person who you are supposed to supplicate yourself before and worship and give offerings to, to pray to and do penance for. He is your master and your Lord. You are his slave. Dictators are merely ash compared to him.

Ah, the Cosmic Dictator, Hyper Hitler, the Infinite Authoritarian!

I think i'll just not give him the satisfaction, in that case.

Miltank posted:

Kyrie is correct that we should just accept that God is goodness. He is incorrect in claiming that we ought to accept God as he is presented in the OT scriptures as that goodness. God's character as man can understand it was revealed by his time as a human on earth.

So should we judge God's character by the time Jesus walked by the Romans with slaves and did absolutely nothing about it?

# ? Dec 1, 2014 03:06

Caros: May 14, 2008

Nessus posted:

I think I've found your problem here, you've confused God with someone else entirely, namely Darkseid.

http://imgur.com/a/3Ql8w

This should clear up the confusion. I think Jesus gets this a lot so He should be OK with that.

It is poo poo like this that makes me a worshiper of Sithrak:

At least I have some certainty in my life. Or do I?!

quote:

We are talking about the Creator of the Universe here. The being who gave you life and everything you have in it. Who knows your heart and your fate. A person who you are supposed to supplicate yourself before and worship and give offerings to, to pray to and do penance for. He is your master and your Lord. You are his slave. Dictators are merely ash compared to him.

Jokes aside, do you really not realize how hosed up this is Kyrie? I'm really tempted to believe you are a troll solely because of this post. Your entire arguments seems to be that god really, really loves me, but that he is also an unbridled dicator above while all human tyrants are petty and insignificant. He will condemn me to eternal torture, indeed he already has either condemned me to eternal torture based on choices that he somehow already knows I will make but which I will make totally of my own, non-destined free will.

I just can't reconcile that. There are plenty of groups of christians that I can get along with, but any group that believes that there is some universal deity that loves me unconditionally but will see me burn for eternity is so hosed up that I can't even really put it into words. I honestly would believe in the gibbering one before I'd believe in your version of god.

Caros fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Dec 1, 2014

# ? Dec 1, 2014 03:10

Ernie Muppari: Aug 4, 2012; Keep this up G'Bert, and soon you won't have a pigeon to protect!

Kyrie eleison posted:

We are talking about the Creator of the Universe here. The being who gave you life and everything you have in it. Who knows your heart and your fate. A person who you are supposed to supplicate yourself before and worship and give offerings to, to pray to and do penance for. He is your master and your Lord. You are his slave. Dictators are merely ash compared to him.

Well then he should probably come down here to make that clear since I've never once in my life felt like that was A Thing.

# ? Dec 1, 2014 03:16

Caros: May 14, 2008

Miltank posted:

What moral teachings do you think it is necessary to be learned and what morals are natural? I don't deny that humans have a natural empathy for those within their immediate community, but that has always seemed useless as a basis for what we would consider morality. Humans obviously don't need learned morality to keep them from say, murdering those around them- their family or immediate community. That natural empathy doesn't seem to extend to those outside the limits of people within one's community though.

Also, what is the logical basis for morality? I can see how you could start with a moral baseline like, 'all humans should have equal access to happiness' and logically determine what the next step would be to realize this morality, but what role does logic play in the formation of that moral baseline?

Morality is nothing more than social conventions designed around monkey behavior. We have a taboo against murder because murdering within social groups disrupted them, and groups that prohibited murder were more successful than ones that allowed it. Morality (in my view) is largely an evolutionary process based entirely upon the agreement of people in regards to social behavior. This is why a couple centuries back slavery was a-okay but it is now utterly abhorent, moral attitudes towards slavery shifted over time.

Any argument for the logical basis of morality has less to do with proving a logically objective or 'natural' morality than it does with trying to codify existing social behaviors. The social contract for example, was not something that people designed and used to build a society, but is a way of explaining the behavior of the society and morality that organically developed over time.

quote:

Well then he should probably come down here to make that clear since I've never once in my life felt like that was A Thing.

Pretty much. I'm probably going to end up in hell because I was born into a household that was firmly anti-religious, which means that I've never been able to really 'get' religious services in general. I attended Easter Mass once with my wife and felt nothing but an incredibly profound sense of boredom. Thanks for the eternal damnation for something more or less out of my control!

# ? Dec 1, 2014 03:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 5, 2024 16:58

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Nessus posted:

Jesus starts out poorish (a carpenter is still skilled labor), became a teacher, got crucified, and was during this entire sequence of events literally God at all times. Yes? Or is there some nuance here - did Jesus not know he was literally and completely God during some parts of this? (This is actual authentic curiosity, since it seems like a point that would need reconciliation. From one perspective, it was all just God play-acting in front of us; from another, it implies that God can, to some extent, stop being God for a while.)

The traditional answer would be yes, Jesus was God the whole time.

But there are other answers though. Things like: Jesus becomes the Christ on the Cross. An older example of that one specifically would be adoption-ism. Pre Nicaea there were a shitload of other answers to this question.

There are shitload of answers now, too. There are some Christian theologians who even go with he was just a regular person.

# ? Dec 1, 2014 03:44

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > There is only one thing that matters and it is Jesus Christ

«‹›316 »