Quote from Jay13x »Talk to your doctor, they could help, as it could be allergies.
Is your wife under a great deal of stress lately? My wife got stress hives while she was in medical school and still gets them occasionally. They seem a lot like bug bites.
Quote from Tiax »Does "etc." include "be pretty okay with slavery"?
Quote from Blinking Spirit »Even the New Testament, the "good" testament, has a theological thesis that revolves around the concepts of blood debt and human sacrifice. These themes may have had appeal to the sort of society that enjoyed watching condemned men kill each other on the sands of the arena. But we do know better now. And modern Christians have to engage in some serious cognitive dissonance to reconcile their 21st-Century sensibilities with the Bronze Age mores they claim to be guided by.
Quote from Highroller »Quote from PandasRpeople2 »Highroller, let's take a step back from the whole "dysfunctional family" paradigm and approach the question more generally. It seems to me that you are saying a person cannot be acting morally in doing [X], no matter how ostensibly good [X] appears to be, if he is lying about his motives. Would you agree with that?No, because the husband is doing [X] out of entirely selfish reasons that harm his family.
Quote from PandasRpeople2 »Highroller, let's take a step back from the whole "dysfunctional family" paradigm and approach the question more generally. It seems to me that you are saying a person cannot be acting morally in doing [X], no matter how ostensibly good [X] appears to be, if he is lying about his motives. Would you agree with that?
This is what I mean by "mental gymnastics," Pandas. You can't accept a truth because it's threatening to you, and so you go into denial, and thus twist around your thoughts to make the conclusion you want come out. The arguments don't make sense, but of course they don't, because you're not trying to have a logical argument, you're trying to avoid accepting the truth any way that you can.
Look at what you're arguing. You're trying to argue that the husband in this relationship is behaving out of love because "love" to you means, "really wanting to leave his wife but not doing so only because he's terrified that he'll face torture if he does."
Quote from Blinking Spirit »Then how can you insist that people not dismiss the Bible?
Quote from Stairc »I'm guessing then that you don't consider eternal torture to count as infinitely merciful and infinitely kind and infinitely loving then.
Quote from Highroller » »Actually, your statement is both those things.
Quote from Stairc »I have to wonder, if eternal torture doesn't qualify as not-loving, not-compassionate or not-merciful... What possibly could qualify as not-loving or not-compassionate or not-merciful to those people being tortured forever?
Quote from Taylor »And I feel this is a leap backwards when your trying to look critically at what is said and move forwards with it. If we thought Newton was an aspect of the Creator, then the work he did on alchemy would have a different connotation. In that case, Newton might have held science back as much--if not more--then he brought it forward.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »What is your opinion on the Völuspá, the Iliad, the Qur'an, the Kitáb i-Aqdas, the Mahabharata, the Lotus Sutra, the Tao Te Ching, the Popol Vuh, the Book of Mormon, and Dianetics?
By any sensible metric, our society is getting more peaceful. Violent crime is down, wars are less frequent and less bloody.
Quote from Highroller »This does not make any sense. If hell is self-imposed, then how can God threaten hell?
And if God does not threaten hell, and you don't want to go to hell, then can't you just say, "I don't want to go to hell," and you won't be in it? You said that hell is something God apparently gives reluctantly to those who actively seek it, right? Didn't you say something along the lines of "God gives people what they want"? But you don't actively seek it. In fact, you seem pretty scared of it. So, doesn't that mean you won't go to hell by the parameters established?
As I said, if you have provided an accurate statement of your opinions of your wife and children, then you cannot possibly be said to behave in a loving manner toward them, because the only reason you're there is because you're forced to be there. You are in their lives solely because you feel your own safety is threatened. Your concern is exclusively on yourself, not on them. We see this in your repeated assertions that you would gladly leave them at a moment's notice were the threat of hell not present.
And this is morally wrong because it involves you behaving in a manner that is entirely self-serving, while being contrary to the best interests of anyone else.
Likewise, were we to believe that God is indeed threatening you with hell and torment or whatever, then God is also morally wrong for behaving in a manner that is entirely self-serving, while being contrary to the best interests of anyone else.
By affirming the difference between right and wrong. That is to say, by stating or asserting that there is a difference between right and wrong. Which is what "affirming" means.
Quote from Highroller »Let me see if I do understand your position correctly:
You've posted that (A) God would want someone to stay in a loveless relationship in which a person despises his wife and children and would leave them gladly in a moment's notice; (B) that God would punish that person with eternal hellfire if he did not stay in this relationship; and (C) that any of this is morally acceptable for either God or that person.
Quote from Highroller »I have stated outright that the lack of a hell does not mean a moral vacuum, and do believe that God affirms the difference between right and wrong.
Quote from Highroller » »So if I understand this correctly, when you think of someone who wouldn't torture their child for an eternity, your first thought is, "Pfft, what a helicopter parent?"
You love those false dichotomies don't you?
So you want people to suffer infinite agony for all of eternity.
Now do you see if you had just freaking admitted that, we could have saved two pages worth of denial from you?
Well, yes. Because you're advocating something morally unconscionable and being hypocritical on top of it. Were you expecting applause?
Well, you could not want people to suffer. That's entirely doable. It's called loving and forgiving people.
Or at least not being a dick.
Quote from Bitsy »Highroller is just using the dialectical process to increase his understanding of you and your position.
He hasn't actually insulted you or demeaned you
Highroller wants to know why the idea of punishment of sin is so important to Pandas' and such a large concept in his mind and Pandas' has yet to really answer that question.
Quote from Highroller »And do you believe God would justify you committing harm to people out of pure selfishness?
Quote from Highroller »No, this doesn't have anything to do with God or religion. It has to do with you. This has to do with your need to justify yourself.
And the answer is no. Of course you're not morally justified.
All of this is, of course, completely irrelevant to the discussion. This should not be a discussion about anyone's personal life. This is supposed to be a discussion about Christianity.
Now can we please get back to a discussion on how it is irreconcilable that God can be loving and forgiving and still damn people to hell? Can we get back to a discussion on God, and not Pandas? That'd be great.