Ted Hoffman

The question:GP Lindsey The question is directed to the non-funamentalists - who hold that there was no "original sin".

rainbow walking: Using your definitions, a paradox is 4. A statement contrary to received opinion.
For example, "Cold fire" is a paradox because fire is supposed to be hot. The non-fundamentalists

hold that there was no original sin, YET - one of the fundamental teachings of Xstian doctrines

is that man was created perfect but fell from grace and with that suffering ensued. That cause

and effect scenario is logical(at face value) but if one eliminates the premise(whuch the liberal

christians do), then there is a need to explain the conclusion (because without the assumed

premise, the situation is paradoxical or incomprehensible).
The situation does not require a choice to be made and thats why I disagree when it is called a

dilemma because the central aspect of dilemmas involve choice-making.
We are adressing a self-contradictory situation, NOT a choice between two alternatives.
It is also incorrect to say "it is only a paradox to..." because the situation is not open to

interpretation. The questioner has presupposed that it is a paradox to non-fundamentalist

christians. They can either refute the claim that its a paradox or create a premise that would

make the situation logical(at least as per cause and effect) or they could offer their

rationalisations of the world.
I do not believe that a fundamentalist would have any dilemma at all:
To them,
1. Adam screwed up, hence, we suffer (a logical statement, assuming the premise is true)
2. This world is not our own, what matters here(whether we suffer or not, is not that important)

we are only travellers so its not such a big deal - what matters is what will happen in heaven.
What matters is the spirit, NOT what happens to the body.
etc.
3. If we pray, the suffering will end. If it does not, its Gods will. So our desires dont matter

- what matters(hence what happens) is Gods will. Haven't you attended a christian funeral - or

heard them pray in hospitals?
So the fundamentalist would have no dilemma at all: the situation is cut and dried as far as they

are concerned.
Is it a known fact that it is/would be a paradox with no resolution?
I think you missed my point: that it is not valid to analyze human suffering from the

innocent/guilty standpoint because whether one is guilty or innocent is irrelevant when one is

examining human suffering. Because suffering includes disease, death,starvation eathquakes etc.

In effect, what I meant to say is that it is total baloney for the bible to try telling us that

people suffer because of sin. Even saints fall sick and are not spared from earthquakes. The Pope

has taken enough bullets and broken enough bones.
You said earlier: The A&E story defintely attempts to address the question of suffering from

an innocent/guilty standpoint
My point is there is no innocent/guilty standpoint. Just as there is no christian/muslim

standpoint when examining human suffering - so its not a standpoint because its totally

fallacious and baseless.
I am sorry my question was vague. I know what the A&E story says. I asked you because you implied

that the so-called "innocent/guilty standpoint" is a way of analyzing human suffering.

How is intent relevant - you want to make excuses for an omnipotent God?

Sincere attempt? By killing Egyptian firstborns?
So because someone is primitive, they cannot understand justice? why should lessons on evil turn

their back on justice? An omnipotent God had to compromise (his sense of) justice to teach people

on the badness of evil?
Whether they happened or not, they had a moral. Its apalling. For the record, I do not believe

the bible is a historical account with any veracity.
If it did happen, it would mean that 10 year olds, 1 year old kids etc, were killed. This would

mean innocent people were killed - which would be against Gods own laws or commandments and

Genocide has never humane.
It also means families were broken, mothers suffered losses. The loss of a loved one causes pain.
No, unless he felt the pain of being killed for a crime he did not commit. Suffering has got

nothing to do with a shorter life. Its the manner and the reason of death and the consequences of

death - for those he/she leaves behind.
If someone never comes round to waking up, it means he/she is dead - so your rhetoric question is

a meaningless. Lack of pain doesn't make death sweet.

The differences are:
1. The people leading lavish lifestyles are not omnipotent
2. The above people are not directly inflicting suffering upon the disadvantaged people.
3. The malnutrition and disease is not caused by the lavish lifestyles the priveledged ones live
vague references wont do. You would do better if you provided specific examples. In any case:
What other people feel or do is irrelevant. This is prejudicial language and change of the subject.
**thoroughly amused** Now why would I want you to nibble any carrots?
There might be less suffering yes. Maybe the threat of eternal damnation was the same idea being applied - pain as a deterrent of pain?

This is ok, I would think that it would be misleading to say that the idea of sacrificing of a son as penance fon sins comitted was passed down from older practices of human sacrifice - unless it were the same people using first born sons as sacrificial lambs. But then again, the bible has never been totally original so my argument wouldnt illustrate much.
Self-preservation, fear.
Above. If a selfish act results in harming others, then its a pathological disorder - needing professional help, not mysticism.
Provide examples please.
Instincts, hormones, psychological disposition, personality. Sorry, no gene that I know of.
Are you accusing me of quoting you out of context?
Jumping to conclusions now are we? Is this how you approach issues - assigning baseless motives and accusing me of malice and sadism?
yes you did. You said : ...there resides within each of us a predatory beast whose appetites will, and often does, compel us to act in ways that bring suffering upon some innocent party
Which people?
Who gets to judge other people as behaving badly? On what basis? Subjective opinion? Surrounding norms? Ones culture?
I agree you should not be compelled to defend a God you deny knowledge of. Forgive me for you seem to infer that there were some lessons to be learnt from "jobs experience". Forgive my presumption.
I find the metaphors misplaced and unwarranted given this is a philosophical discussion and in any case they served to obscure your meaning instead of adding any poetic beauty. I however appreciate your effort in making your meaning clear. It would not be inconceivable if you actually meant "creatures" given the theological nature of this discussion.
First of all, you created a dilemma from a paradoxical situation - so we dont need to make any choices. Secondly, besides the medication and dedication(whatever the heck that means), we could choose to live our lives without choosing either of those. You created a false dilemma because we DONT have to make any choice about this matter. We can dismiss it as a vain philosophical palaver with no practical import in our day-to-day life.

Welcome RW. Remember me btw?

rainbow walking

Hi Photocrat,
I apologize for my sudden departure and prolonged absence. I understand that my deconversion may have caused some hurt feelings and doubt among those who held me in higher regard than I realized or deserved. It was never my desire to bring unnecessary pain into anyone's life or to heap doubt and uncertainty upon anyone's faith and beliefs. I should have and could have responded to each of you personally but I was fearful that it would turn into another debate and I just wasn't up for that so I threw myself into my work and enjoyed the respite from these troublesome questions.
Looking back I now realize that I dedicated the last couple of years of my life defending my reasons for believing rather than actually ministering. It became an obsession to such a degree that I let other priorities drift until it culminated in both the loss of my faith and the near loss of my wife of 22 years. Thankfully we are back together now and working on rebuilding our relationship.
I overcame that loss without appealing to any imaginary God. Instead of hoping and praying I focused on positve steps to recapture the love and companionship I had lost when she left. The entire ordeal has made me stronger and helped me to realize that my life is my responsibility and in my hands. I always believed that but I always also believed there was a supernatural force in my corner giving me the extra umph when needed. Now I realize that extra umph is at my beck and call and kicks in whenever I will it because it resides within me. I believe in my own powers and abilities to overcome, endure or accept whatever I must in the years ahead.
As far as the guilt I no longer live with I became mindful of its presence in my emotional state several years back. The more I contemplated the selfless, suffering image of Christ and compared that to my own state of being the more I began to realize that I could never come close to achieving such a state of existence but I wasn't willing to walk away. I wasn't willing to give up my life or to give up Christ so I waffled somewhere in the twilight zone living with the guilt that I would never take the necessary steps to imitate Christ and never having the courage to renounce such a concept, even deriving some benefits from the pretension...but the guilt never let up, except when I was locked in a philosophical debate with someone defending my reasons for believing. And when I went back and reread some of my angry words I wasn't at all happy about the methods I used either so the guilt returned with a vengeance.
I am beginning to see that the books of the bible were written by humanity as a response to and in an effort to come to grips with the one thing they did realize more than anything else: That we are our own worst enemy. I believe we are now entering a period in our evolutionary climb as a species when we are beginning to realize that we are also our own and best weapon for salvation. I think it would be foolish to discount the past lessons we've learned and majestically expressed in the bible and I think it would be even more foolish to allow any false conclusions drawn upon faulty premises to discount our ability to cope with and overcome the problems we are sure to face in the future as a species.
Our greatest enemy is death and our greatest asset in conquering that enemy is the continued development of our mental faculties. I believe man will one day overcome unsolicited death in such a way as to render death nothing more than another option rather than being at its mercy as we now are. I believe we will populate the universe, bring dead planets to life and create new universes as subsets of existence. As it is written,

We are gods.

rainbow walking

Intensity: The question is directed to the non-funamentalists - who hold that there was no "original sin".

Rw: You appear to have mis-understood GP’s question. I have found nothing in his OP or his follow up responses to indicate he was addressing the question to a specific group of non-fundamentalists, “who hold that there was no original sin.” In fact, just the opposite appears to be the case as seen from this excerpt from his OP:

rw: Clearly he is addressing his question to non-fundamentalists who hold the concept of original sin but do so while picking and choosing among the text which particular accounts are to be taken literal and which aren’t. I suspect you have intentionally added this because you think it will support your contention for the paradox. We shall see.


Intensity: Using your definitions, a paradox is 4. A statement contrary to received opinion.
For example, "Cold fire" is a paradox because fire is supposed to be hot. The non-fundamentalists hold that there was no original sin, YET - one of the fundamental teachings of Xstian doctrines is that man was created perfect but fell from grace and with that suffering ensued.

Rw: Using definition 4. I could say that your inclusion of “non-fundamentalists who hold that there was no original sin” is itself a paradox. But since we’re not so much interested in opinion as we are the truth let’s look at a more salient definition:

par·a·dox (p²r“…-d¼ks”) n. 1. A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true:

First let’s expose the contradiction from within the Christian worldview. Whether this worldview is held by a person who we might label a fundamentalist or a non-fundamentalist is immaterial to the resolution of paradox/dilemma. The Christian worldview holds that the universe was created by an all good God and cannot deny that an intricate aspect of this universe includes the spectre of innocent people suffering. The skeptic challenges the first premise on the basis of the “all good” attribute of this God. Why would an all good God create a universe where innocent people are allowed to suffer? This challenge creates a dilemma in the Christians worldview to be resolved. The Christian sidesteps the dilemma by declaring it a paradox and uses one of two outlets to justify the paradox.

1. All suffering is caused by original sin

2. This all good God has decreed that the greatest good is derived from innocent people’s suffering.

Both are textually supported theological responses to the dilemma. The A&E story in Genesis provides the original sin justification and the “suffering servant” as depicted by Jesus Christ provides the justification for suffering as a good thing. The son who suffered the indignity and humiliation of being an outcast among his own people and being crucified without justification but rewarded with resurrection and a seat of authority next to God including eternal life.

Now either 1 or 2 and especially both in combination can effectively eliminate the paradox for the Christian worldview, but not the dilemma from the perspective of the skeptic. Take another look at definition 1. again for paradox.

1. A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true:

The dilemma is created by whether or not the premises held by the Christian are true. Since the Christian has no evidence that the world was created by God this cannot be held to be a true premise thus the entire artifice begins to crumble into a genuine dilemma…not a paradox. The Christian can rectify the contradiction between an all good God creating a world where innocent people suffer but has no response to any of this being “nonetheless true”. The dilemma remains. Therefore, for the innocent person who’s suffering, in order to realize any potential good from his suffering, he must subscribe to the Christians worldview that has yet to be established as “nonetheless true” and await his death to realize the reward. The dilemma thickens.


Intensity: That cause and effect scenario is logical(at face value) but if one eliminates the premise(whuch the liberal christians do), then there is a need to explain the conclusion (because without the assumed premise, the situation is paradoxical or incomprehensible).

The situation does not require a choice to be made and thats why I disagree when it is called a dilemma because the central aspect of dilemmas involve choice-making.We are adressing a self-contradictory situation, NOT a choice between two alternatives.

Rw: I suggest you re-think your position.


Intensity: It is also incorrect to say "it is only a paradox to..." because the situation is not open to interpretation. The questioner has presupposed that it is a paradox to non-fundamentalist christians. They can either refute the claim that its a paradox or create a premise that would make the situation logical(at least as per cause and effect) or they could offer their rationalisations of
the world.

Rw: First let’s apply the proper definition of dilemma to this discussion:

3. Logic. An argument that presents an antagonist with a choice of two or more alternatives, each of which contradicts the original contention and is conclusive.

The original contention is that the world was created by an all good God. The skeptic challenges this contention by pointing to the suffering of innocent people and offers the alternatives:

1. Either the world was not created by a God…or

2. The God who allegedly created it is not all good.

The challenge creates a dilemma for the Christian, from the skeptics perspective, because number one above is not conclusive. The Christian avoids the dilemma by focusing his efforts on number two as a paradox and then proceeds to unload the paradox by declaring that an all good God created the world “very good” but depraved man turned it into a cesspool where innocent people suffer but the all good God also enacted a means whereby the greatest good, (salvation, eternal life), was achieved via the suffering of innocent people and used Jesus Christ as his primary example.

However the dilemma still exists from the skeptic’s perspective because number one has not been validated and remains inconclusive thereby effectively rendering the inverse of number two, which the Christian is driven to defend, an invalid premise. Because the Christian assumes the truth value of number one the challenge poses no dilemma from his perspective, only a paradox that is easily resolved as I’ve already demonstrated.

Since I am neither a fundamentalist or non-fundamentalist Christian I have no reason to defend the Christian worldview from GP’s challenge, so for me, it remains a dilemma and my choice of terms remain correct.


Intensity: I do not believe that a fundamentalist would have any dilemma at all:
To them,
1. Adam screwed up, hence, we suffer (a logical statement, assuming the premise is true)
2. This world is not our own, what matters here(whether we suffer or not, is not that important)
we are only travellers so its not such a big deal - what matters is what will happen in heaven.
What matters is the spirit, NOT what happens to the body.
etc.
3. If we pray, the suffering will end. If it does not, its Gods will. So our desires dont matter
- what matters(hence what happens) is Gods will. Haven't you attended a christian funeral - or
heard them pray in hospitals?
So the fundamentalist would have no dilemma at all: the situation is cut and dried as far as they are concerned.

Rw: Unfortunately none of your justifications above respond to the skeptics challenge of why an all good God would create a world where suffering was possible. So the dilemma, if answered by these responses, would only grow more visible.

Number 1 places the blame on man.

Number 2 is a cop out and doesn’t even address the challenge.

Number 3 places the blame on God without clarifying why an all good God would will innocent people to suffer thereby eliminating Him from contention for the all good status.
The dilemma remains and you’ve not even made an effort beyond number 1 to transfer it to a paradox.


Intensity: Is it a known fact that it is/would be a paradox with no resolution?

Rw: Unless you can demonstrate that the world was indeed created by an all good God.



Intensity: I think you missed my point: that it is not valid to analyze human suffering from the innocent/guilty standpoint because whether one is guilty or innocent is irrelevant when one is examining human suffering. Because suffering includes disease, death,starvation eathquakes etc.

Rw: That all depends on whose microscope you are using. If you are just analyzing suffering from a general perspective then perhaps the medical lens would suffice, but I believe GP was analyzing it from a religious perspective from which the lens I’ve inserted renders the sharpest clearest view.

Intensity: In effect, what I meant to say is that it is total baloney for the bible to try telling us that people suffer because of sin. Even saints fall sick and are not spared from earthquakes. The Pope has taken enough bullets and broken enough bones.

Rw: On this we both can agree.


Intensity: You said earlier: The A&E story defintely attempts to address the question of suffering from an innocent/guilty standpoint
My point is there is no innocent/guilty standpoint. Just as there is no christian/muslim standpoint when examining human suffering - so its not a standpoint because its totally fallacious and baseless.

Rw: Then your point has missed its mark. From the Christian perspective, that views the world as having fallen under the spell of sin, the innocent/guilty standpoint is the only proper way to view suffering. If you’ll notice, my statement above was based on the A&E story and not my own personal view. But even my own personal view reflects a belief that much of the suffering experienced by people can be labeled as suffering created by people guilty of wrong doing. So you can’t just discount this area of human suffering because some religious tenets have been attached to it that you find personally revolting. The fact remains that right and wrong do exist and are attached to peoples actions and do produce consequences. This is a reality of our world like it or not.

Intensity earlier: Is suffering supposed to be caused by sin?

Rw earlier: According to the A&E account…yes.


Intensity: I am sorry my question was vague. I know what the A&E story says. I asked you because you implied that the so-called "innocent/guilty standpoint" is a way of analyzing human suffering.

Rw: And I repeat, not only do I imply it but I defend it as one viable avenue of examining particular aspects of human suffering. It is certainly not the only avenue but it is a genuine means of weighing the consequences of human behavior. In the case of natural catastrophes every victim can be said to be innocent unless it can be shown that they were forewarned and refused to heed the warning.


rw earlier: The original intent of the sacrificial rituals was to convey to the tribe the awful consequences of evil.

Intensity earlier: And in the process undermine the importance of justice while dealing with evil?

Rw earlier: No, I don’t think the original intent was to undermine justice...

Intensity: How is intent relevant - you want to make excuses for an omnipotent God?

Rw: I don’t think an omnipotent God has any role outside of human imagination in any of this. However shy of the truth these primitive people may have been I still think their intentions were good and based on their limited understanding of human nature. Intent is always relevant in all cases where culpability is in question. You seem to be disoriented in your position here. In order to argue the validity of these claims a skeptic has to allow certain assumptions for the sake of argument. If not there is no basis from which to expose the dilemma.


Intensity: Sincere attempt? By killing Egyptian firstborns?

Rw: Wha? Chapter and verse that details any Hebrew killing an Egyptian as part of any religious ritual please. According to the myth it was a death angel dispatched by God that did the killing. If you have a better explanation for the religious views of suffering why not prepare a treatise and submit it for our perusal instead of asking me all these inane questions and then picking apart my answers?

Rw earlier:...A primitive type of preventive maintenance.


Intensity: So because someone is primitive, they cannot understand justice?

Rw: I don’t know Einstein, maybe a sense of justice is genetic and not everybody back then had one? Judging from your question’s perspective I take it you think 5000 year old mummies were all geniuses with PHD’s in human behavior. Or maybe their sense of justice was just like ours is today…color blind…sees everything in the color of green.

Intensity: why should lessons on evil turn their back on justice? An omnipotent God had to compromise (his sense of) justice to teach people on the badness of evil?

Rw: Let me see if I can make this as clear and concise as possible. I’m not a Christian. I don’t believe in gods…any gods or any mans variation of them. I’m god. You’re god. We’re all gods. I don’t know what you think this little fishing expedition will net you but I’ll make a prediction. You’re going to drag up one old tennis shoe and a bunch of sand and seaweed. Otherwise these asinine attempts to pull my chain are getting old in a hurry. If you have a point to make in all this I suggest you make it cause my patience is running thin. Why don’t you just say whatever the hell it is you are trying o say and stop haranguing me with all these questions clearly intentioned to put me on some imagined spot or another.

Rw earlier: There’s considerable speculation as to whether these events ever happened.


Intensity: Whether they happened or not, they had a moral. Its apalling. For the record, I do not believe the bible is a historical account with any veracity.

Rw: Well thank you for finally stating a position. Let’s see if I can play this game too. What morals do you think they were trying to express? Do you think that what you believe has any impact on whether the biblical record is an accurate historical record or not? If it is fairly accurate do you think this would influence your judgment of its moral value? Do you think 4 and 5 thousand year old people should have had morals equivalent to ours? If so, why? Which of our modern morals do you envision as being vastly superior to theirs? If you were suddenly thrust back into their era would you still try to maintain your modern moral perspective or would you succomb to the temptation to alter your morals to facilitate your continued survival?

Rw earlier: But, for the sake of argument, let’s say they did. What evidence do you have that these firstborn “suffered” prior to their death?


Intensity: If it did happen, it would mean that 10 year olds, 1 year old kids etc, were killed. This would mean innocent people were killed - which would be against Gods own laws or commandments and Genocide has never humane.
It also means families were broken, mothers suffered losses. The loss of a loved one causes pain.

Rw: So now you are willing to allow “innocence” a role in the moral question of suffering after all that whining about innocence/guilt being an invalid integer in any analysis of human suffering. Interesting. As far as the suffering of the families I believe I noted that in my last response.

Rw earlier: Perhaps they just fell asleep and never woke up? And do you feel that a person’s life being shorter than average to be a form of suffering? If so, would you say a person who died at the age of 65 suffered because he didn’t live to see 66?


Intensity: No, unless he felt the pain of being killed for a crime he did not commit. Suffering has got nothing to do with a shorter life. Its the manner and the reason of death and the consequences of death - for those he/she leaves behind. If someone never comes round to waking up, it means he/she is dead - so your rhetoric question is a meaningless. Lack of pain doesn't make death sweet.

Rw: What was rhetorical about my question? It was a valid response to your assertion that those first born of Egypt somehow suffered. It doesn’t appear anywhere in the myth that they were pre-informed of their imminent death so there is no reason to assume they suffered any mental anguish. The myth declares it happened at night when most of them were likely asleep. That is why I said it is possible they went to sleep and never woke up. There are certainly more painful ways to die. Your statement that lack of pain doesn’t make death sweet ignores the reality of those suffering from advanced forms of cancers that induce pain which even the strongest drugs do not dull. For these I would say that death is likely preferable and would be a welcome relief…wouldn’t you?

Rw earlier: Now, mind you, I’m not defending any of these atrocities but I ask you how different this is than the thousands of babies dying everyday somewhere in the world around us from malnutrition and disease while others live in the lap of luxury and revel in their splendor and riches?


Intensity: The differences are:
1. The people leading lavish lifestyles are not omnipotent


Rw: How is this relevant?

Intensity: 2. The above people are not directly inflicting suffering upon the disadvantaged people.

Rw: Directly…no, but if they had the means to eradicate some of that suffering and refused to do so…?

Intensity: 3. The malnutrition and disease is not caused by the lavish lifestyles the priveledged ones live

Rw: That one is debatable. There is evidence to suggest that many diseases are a result of pollutants being dispelled into the atmosphere, then there’s radiation poisoning and no telling what effects other chemicals might be having on these remote regions ability to produce healthy crops and cattle. The fact remains there are resolutions to many of the causes of malnutrition and disease but not near enough people and resources being committed to the problem.

Rw earlier: I’m of the opinion that too many self righteous people are too eager to accuse and throw stones at other peoples beliefs and the icons of those beliefs when they ought to take a look at the world they live in today and decide just how righteous they are to even dare to raise the issue when they do little or nothing themselves.


Insensitivity: vague references wont do. You would do better if you provided specific examples. In any case:
What other people feel or do is irrelevant. This is prejudicial language and change of the subject.

Rw: The subject is innocent people suffering. Noting the fact that people like you seem quick to judge the actions of primitive people while ignoring the realities of your own age goes hand in glove with this discussion. Why would you want to skirt the issue and shift the burden with a declaration of prejudice unless it hit a little too close to home…eh? What’s prejudicial about pointing out the obvious? Are you saying it’s more enlightened to ignore the suffering around you and throw stones at people who aren’t alive to defend themselves?

Intensity earlier: Couldn't the omniscient God find a way of teaching the bad in evil without throwing away justice?

Rw earlier: Obviously you want me to nibble on the carrot of omniscience.


Intensity: **thoroughly amused** Now why would I want you to nibble any carrots?

Rw: **thoroughly bored** because you keep mistakenly tossing these references to God’s alleged qualities into the discussion assuming I’ll launch into some defense or another of them.

Rw earlier: Perhaps if bad and selfish men could be taught to display a little mercy towards the innocent there might be less suffering in the world today.


Intensity: There might be less suffering yes. Maybe the threat of eternal damnation was the same idea being applied - pain as a deterrent of pain?

Rw: That is the principle behind criminal law, is it not? Wasting away in a prison or being executed is definitely a pain for pain policy if there ever was one. The concept of justice is nothing more than revenge wrapped up in a more respectable package anyway.

Rw earlier: I used the predatory beast as a metaphor to describe that aspect of our nature that often drives us to think of and commit selfish acts that harm others. Do you have a scientific name for it?


Intensity: Above. If a selfish act results in harming others, then its a pathological disorder - needing professional help, not mysticism.
Provide examples please.

Rw: So you call it a pathological disorder. Then every man, woman and child on this planet who lives or has ever lived is in need of professional help. And you claim you don’t understand what I meant by medicated or dedicated.

Rw earlier: A particular gene you’d like to introduce or a particular personality trait?


Intensity: Instincts, hormones, psychological disposition, personality. Sorry, no gene that I know of.

Rw: And I suppose you’ve exempted yourself from any of these pathological tendencies…eh?

Rw earlier: Why do you pick and snipe at everything I’ve said? Do you really want to know or do you think you already know and are trying to set up a scenario where you can display your perceived superior understanding?


Intensity: Are you accusing me of quoting you out of context?

Rw: No, I asked you some very simple and direct questions for which you appear not to have the moxy to answer. Are you also exempting yourself from answering questions?

Rw earlier: If so, what makes you do this? Do you derive some form of pleasure from it?


Intensity: Jumping to conclusions now are we? Is this how you approach issues - assigning baseless motives and accusing me of malice and sadism?

Rw: Is that how you interpret my questions…as accusations of malice and sadism? Interesting. Do you often read such accusations in questions when they are directed at you? Now that you’ve raised the subject what is your motive for choosing my posts to pick apart? You appear to have taken an adversarial position without justification. Just the act of picking someone’s words apart line for line is an offensive tactic that smacks of arrogance and smugness.

Rw earlier: I never said we needed a beast


Intensity: yes you did. You said : ...there resides within each of us a predatory beast whose appetites will, and often does, compel us to act in ways that bring suffering upon some innocent party

Rw: Oh pulease…where in that paragraph did I say we NEED a beast.

Rw earlier: Why do you think people behave as badly as they do?

Intensity: Which people?

Rw: Saddam Hussein, Osama ben Laden, Bill Clinton, Jeffry Dohmer, the boy next door…go thru today’s paper and pick out a story of someone who’s committed a crime.

Intensity: Who gets to judge other people as behaving badly?

Rw: You and I do, society, history, appointed judges, whoever has to endure or witness or suffer because of someone’s behavior. Are you saying there is no right and wrong and no social structure has the right to establish guidelines and laws? Are you an Anarchist?

Intensity: On what basis?

Rw: On the basis of life and liberty.

Intensity: Subjective opinion? Surrounding norms? Ones culture?

Rw: Since the majority of subjective opinion is formed by surrounding norms and culture…what’s the distinction? Why these three? What if some religious tenets conformed with these three?

Rw earlier: Since I’m not a defendant of the Christian position perhaps you should frame these for someone else. It sounds like you’re trying to build a case for an un-just God, if one existed, which is irrelevant to this discussion.


Intensity: I agree you should not be compelled to defend a God you deny knowledge of. Forgive me for you seem to infer that there were some lessons to be learnt from "jobs experience". Forgive my presumption.

Rw: I did not deny knowledge of, I denied belief in.

Rw earlier: This was a discussion on the suffering of righteous people which is a moral question. There is the moral, the immoral and the amoral. It was also metaphorical and not intended to be exhaustive.


Intensity: I find the metaphors misplaced and unwarranted given this is a philosophical discussion and in any case they served to obscure your meaning instead of adding any poetic beauty.


Rw: That is your personal subjective opinion and you are entitled. This was, I thought, a religious discussion and did not see any misplacement of the metaphors. If they seemed to obscure my message perhaps the obscurity originated in the mind incapable of grasping the deeper meaning of such concepts.

Intensity: I however appreciate your effort in making your meaning clear. It would not be inconceivable if you actually meant "creatures" given the theological nature of this discussion.

Rw: Well, thank you for that advice. I’ll take it into consideration the next time I find myself searching for a metaphor that everyone can easily comprehend.

Rw earlier: The way I see it from here we have two choices...Medicated or Dedicated.

Intensity earlier: This is a false dilemma. It could be none of the above.

Rw: And you support this assertion how?


Intensity: First of all, you created a dilemma from a paradoxical situation

Rw: Yes, thank you for that concession.

Intensity: - so we dont need to make any choices.


Rw: We don’t? Then we can just buy the Christian explanation for why innocent people suffer hook, line, and sinker?

Intensity: Secondly, besides the medication and dedication(whatever the heck that means), we could choose to live our lives without choosing either of those. You created a false dilemma because we DONT have to make any choice about this matter. We can dismiss it as a vain philosophical palaver with no practical import in our day-to-day life.

Rw: Oh really…and the next time we break a leg we can choose to ignore the pain or refuse to pray for any relief. Just dismiss the limp and aching sensation as a vain philosophical palaver that carries no practicality or import to our day-to-day struggle to survive?

Intensity: Welcome RW. Remember me btw?

Rw: Sure I do. How are you?

Panta Pei

I missed you RW and am very glad to see you back.

You haven't lost your touch or technique for specific analysis.

Welcome to 'the dark side'

Perseverate et Pugna,

~ Steve

Ted Hoffman

Ok,
RW, I think we agree on many relevant aspects that touch on this topic.
And I am satisfied with that. I can see our discussion continuing indefinitely and I would like to lay it down at this point.
I am sure we will "meet" again.

rainbow walking

rw: Thank you Howard. I seem to be dissappointing everyone these days. Hey, I can play the devil's...uh...er...angel's advocate if you'd like and we can still stimulate some interesting discussions ;^D. I've always enjoyed your style of witticism also.

rw: And, during all these occasions of Israel's backsliding and returning to YHWY the chief culprit was their tendency towards idolotry in paying homage to other gods. It was finally declared that YHWY was a jealous God which further saddled them with the paradox of justifying jealousy with the all good status.

Now Howard, (removing horns and slipping into robe and halo), from the christian's perspective it makes perfect sense. Whenever a believer suffers it's attributed to God teaching them a lesson or taking them through a valley that will help them grow spiritually, or pruning them of some unsavory habit or characteristic. I thought you, of all people, would know this.

On the lighter side, being a fellow South Carolinian, I wonder if you've heard the recent radio commercial inviting folks to come to this new church in Greenville curiously called "Church On Fire"?

The reason I ask is because I had quite a chuckle hearing this commercial wondering what the non-religious folks who have no discernment of religious terminology must be thinking when they hear this commercial. With all the ethnic church burnings in recent years they are likely wondering if it's been adopted as the new religious wave of the future. "Hey folks, we're having a church burning this sunday. Bring the family and we'll all sit around roasting pastors and their wives for edification."

Or..."Listen to this Harriet, these Klan members have gotten so bold that now they're advertising when and where they're torching the next church."

I bet you could come up with some real side splitters to this one, Howard.

rainbow walking

Hi Steve,
Thanx for the vote of confidence. How are things in Biloxi these days? Say, I'm glad you brought up the subject of the darkside. I've been stumbling around in here for several months looking for the light switch. Could you point me in the direction of the wall where it has been installed...or does being an atheist mean that we have to do without power also?

rainbow walking

Not a problem my friend. Glad I could be of service. I'm still trying to remember the handle you use to post under when we first crossed blades?

HelenM

Oh, rainbow walking!!!

I'm going to welcome you back too!

I'm so glad you're ok. Seems like some of your friends were very worried about you a little while back...I got beat up a bit for seeming not to care enough as I recall...

Anyway enough of that already.

I have a suggestion: think about what things (people) matter most to you in life; start there.

All you have lost is 'certainty' - you haven't lost the ability to care and feel deeply and I hope you haven't lost any of the people - as in, human beings - you love.

Well...I'm just guessing, of course...I wouldn't really know what to do in your situation...

But I believe you'll find a way; I think you'll be fine... I'm really glad you're back!

love
Helen

Ted Hoffman

Rainbow Walking
Uh, jaliet sir