A question for the believers....

[mismused]

If however you feel I've been arrogant I aplogize as that isn't how I have been feeling as I type here.[/I]

========================

Please see my previous post. Thank you in advance.

mismused

 

[stingray61]

Oh and one more tiny thing. I don't care if you believe in my opinions or not, just as long as you stop mis-interpreting the Bible.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Pure,

So if I say something about you, you being a moderator and all, and you don't like it do I get the boot from lit?


I don't understand why you get the idea I'm being hardnosed or have "Protestantism" beliefs. I have never been nor will I ever be a protestant. I'm simply answering the questions the best way I know how, and for the last time there isn't any anger in them what so ever. Please people stop assuming I'm angry or trying to convince you of something. All I'm trying to do is correct what I believe to be a mis-interpritation of scripture.

Funny how it is just Joe and myself that have been jumped upon by the non-believers here, and singled out by a moderator.

In any case I have nothing more to add as I find most just arguing for the sake of it and very closed minded and defensive. I wanted to have a nice discussion about religion and to correct some misbeliefs so that everyone has an equal chance to believe or dis-believe the Bible as long as they understand it correctly.

Ok now reply with how it was all my fault if you got angry because you didn't like what I posted. A discussion should never have anger or malice in it or else it will fall apart so please keep your anger and malice at home.

Pure isn't a moderator, he's a pedantic little shit. You're not going to get "kicked off of Lit" because you disagree with him or anything.

I still disagree with you on the point of choice in beliefs, but that's my private disagreement and one I stepped away from when my emotions were clearly beginning to stir.

So, don't worry, be willing to stand up for what you believe and whatnot and also know that not everyone is going to agree with you.

Worldviews are the foundation of a lot of things of human nature. They don't change whimsically like a Maglite. They require deep and personal inspection and thought.

And so on and so forth, anyway, the important thing is don't be afraid of Pure and everything and shut off your own worldview because of it.

 

[Kassiana]

Sting response #1

Kassi, before I take the time to answer you please read what Joe has said here and answer that if you can.
--Thanks, but no. I have him on my ignore list so I don't have to read what he says and answer it.

if you don't think it ever happened then you can't use it as an argument agaisnt God
--I'm not arguing with God. I'm arguing with you. You said you believed this happened. I'm trying to point out to you that this is an immoral and wrong story. Of course I believe it has nothing to do with God and never happened. But YOU believe God murdered innocent people. And apparently you have no problem with that. I'm sorry to see that. I'd think anyone would condemn murder no matter who does it. I'm sad to see people would excuse it based on who does it.

is it better to die young and go to Heaven or live to be old and possibly suffer a lot here on Earth, and then die and go to hell?
--There is no hell, so this question is meaningless to me. You might as well ask "Would it be better to die young and go to heaven or die and go to the land of Oz?"

we as humans can't call it evil
--Oh, yes, we can. I can call female genital mutilation evil. I can call bombing innocent civilians evil. I can call dictators evil. I can surely judge a story attributed to a God and say whether or not it shows evil. And I have. If this were a story attributed to any human being, you admit you'd call it evil. If this were attributed to any other God, you'd call it evil. You only say "we don't have all the evidence" because this story is attributed to YOUR God.

Sorry. That's the fallacy of special pleading. If it's immoral in all other circumstances, it's immoral in this one. If you HAVE evidence that it isn't, please produce it. But don't expect me to withhold moral judgement because you happen to believe I should treat the God depicted in the Bible in a special way and exempt the Bible stories from evil because you believe I should. I won't withhold moral judgement on leaders of countries because their supporters believe I should, and I certainly won't withhold them on tales of supernatural entities, be they named Allah or Jesus or Mithra, because their followers mistakenly believe their evil actions aren't evil.

God has His reasons and by nature He can't do evil.
--Then to me it makes far more sense to believe that the Jews made up this story and mistakenly attributed it to their God than to believe your God would murder babies. Doesn't it?

I don't go to Christian apologetic sites any more. To be honest, Sting, they do a worse job than you. At least you admit you'd never murder babies. Often the positions those people take have them endorsing worse than baby slaughters.

 

[mismused]

Ok now reply with how it was all my fault if you got angry because you didn't like what I posted. A discussion should never have anger or malice in it or else it will fall apart so please keep your anger and malice at home.

======================

*Sigh!*

Uh, Sting, please see my last two posts to you.

mismused

 

[stingray61]

Are you out of your league?


=======================

(*snicker*)

Oh, boy!

Uh, excuse me, but that was very "Christ" like, now wasn't it?

Tsk-tsk.

Stop it, Sting, you're insulting what you believe now. Too much arrogance here.


WOW here we go again. if you're going to qoute someone it's only proper to qoute everything they have said rather than a small part of it and take it out of contex as well.

I never claimed to be Christ like. I am human after all and subject to all the flaws therein so how can I be Christ like?

I wasn't being arrogant I was asking a question because I honestly don't know the answer.


you said "Stop it, Sting, you're insulting what you believe now. Too much arrogance here."


Seems to me you're doing the exact same thing you accuse me of doing. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

mismused

 

[Kassiana]

Sting response #2

What's so hard about saying Christ died for my sins and I am going to live my life following his example?
--Sigh. You don't remember that I said I was a Christian once, do you.

1. I don't believe that "sin" in the Christian exclusive sense exists. Yes, I believe people do bad things. I don't think their doing bad things is caused by someone eating some fruit "God" didn't want them to have.

2. I don't believe the Bible is a good or accurate record of God, Jesus, morality, or how to treat other people.

Which to say is to "Love everyone as myself and have no other gods before the one true God".
--Ahem. Polytheist. Doesn't believe there's only one "true God." Believes God is present in Kuan Yin and Lord Krishna and Allah and YHWH and Isis and Jupiter and so on. Can't give up that belief because some anonymous Christian who disagrees with my theology tells me to.

tell me why it's so hard for you to do that.
--For the same reason why it's so hard for you to convert to another religion at this point. You believe yours is true and everyone else's is wrong for you. I believe mine is true and everyone else's is wrong for me.

I don't care if you believe in my opinions or not, just as long as you stop mis-interpreting the Bible.
--I'm sure some people here think you're the one misinterpreting the Bible. I know the people at www.tentmaker.org would think you are. They believe that Jesus' sacrifice DID save all people for all time.

 

[mismused]

Oh and one more tiny thing. I don't care if you believe in my opinions or not, just as long as you stop mis-interpreting the Bible.

=========================

Even more arrogance, or is it just ignorance now?

Whose bible? Will you now take on the Vatican, or Protestants, or all the other "interpretations" of the bible? Is yours the only interpretation that counts?

Please, Sting, you do really seem like a nice person at heart, but you are really coming off as a prime example of the saying that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

There is a lot of room for "interpreting" what is called "the bible." See my original post for that, and do a little extrapolating.

mismused

 

[stingray61]

Pure isn't a moderator, he's a pedantic little shit. You're not going to get "kicked off of Lit" because you disagree with him or anything.

I still disagree with you on the point of choice in beliefs, but that's my private disagreement and one I stepped away from when my emotions were clearly beginning to stir.

So, don't worry, be willing to stand up for what you believe and whatnot and also know that not everyone is going to agree with you.

Worldviews are the foundation of a lot of things of human nature. They don't change whimsically like a Maglite. They require deep and personal inspection and thought.

And so on and so forth, anyway, the important thing is don't be afraid of Pure and everything and shut off your own worldview because of it.

So you're saying Pure can call him/herself a moderator and even the real mods don't care? How clever. As I said before I don't really want people to agree with me I just want them to undrestand the Bible correctly, if, after that they still don't believe then that's fine too.

 

[Kassiana]

I just want them to undrestand the Bible correctly
--Does that equate to agreeing with you? Do you think you really understand the Bible correctly?

www.jewsforjudaism.org also disagrees with you.

 

[cloudy]

Sting:

Dranoel is not my alter ego, and is quite capable of forming his own opinions. I don't tell him what to think, just like he doesn't tell me what to think. As a matter of fact, spiritually, we believe very different things.

I'm quite happy to leave you to believe whatever you choose, and as a matter of fact, have stated that several times. I just think you're doing more harm by showing your faith in the light that you have.

*shrug*

And, no, I'm not going to preach my beliefs to you, because, to be honest, you wouldn't get it, and it's none of my business what you believe, just like it's none of your business what I believe.

btw - I've read every post here, sweetie......don't make assumptions that you don't have a clue whether they're right or wrong.

mismused:

Kassiana: *standing ovation* even though I think you're wasting your time. He's right and everyone else is wrong, don'tcha know.

 

[English Lady]

Sting -just take a step back right now and take a deep breath.

You are starting to come over badly and I know your intentions are good.

Step back, think and pray and come back at a later point and decide which battles are worth fighting.

There is no point trying to argue with folks over your interpretation of the bible. Everyone interprets it differently and you'll never get everyone to agree with your particular view.

Just know when to step back or you're going to find yourself doing more harm than good.

Well least thats my view feel free to take my advice or not *L*

 

[mismused]

Sorry, the way you posted this made it impossible to quote your post, so had to do it this way:

(Your post

stingray61
Literotica Guru

Registered: Jan 2005
Location: inside your mind
Posts: 583

quote:Originally posted by mismused

Originally posted by stingray61


Are you out of your league?


=======================

(*snicker*)

Oh, boy!

Uh, excuse me, but that was very "Christ" like, now wasn't it?

Tsk-tsk.

Stop it, Sting, you're insulting what you believe now. Too much arrogance here.


WOW here we go again. if you're going to qoute someone it's only proper to qoute everything they have said rather than a small part of it and take it out of contex as well.

I never claimed to be Christ like. I am human after all and subject to all the flaws therein so how can I be Christ like?

I wasn't being arrogant I was asking a question because I honestly don't know the answer.


you said "Stop it, Sting, you're insulting what you believe now. Too much arrogance here."


Seems to me you're doing the exact same thing you accuse me of doing. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

mismused

__________________
Never trust anyone that can't come up with their own decent sig line. ~Stingray61~

=======================

I really only want to focus your increasing narrowness to this one thing (Hmm, increasing narrowness -- an oxymoron?)

"WOW here we go again. if you're going to qoute someone it's only proper to qoute everything they have said rather than a small part of it and take it out of contex as well."

Sting, it stands by itself just fine. Stop mesmerizing yourself with whatever delusions have you in their spell. Take time to listen to the goodness that we can see in your heart, and forget the need to fight whatever it is you think you need to fight to the death.

mismused

 

[cloudy]

Sting -just take a step back right now and take a deep breath.

You are starting to come over badly and I know your intentions are good.

Step back, think and pray and come back at a later point and decide which battles are worth fighting.

There is no point trying to argue with folks over your interpretation of the bible. Everyone interprets it differently and you'll never get everyone to agree with your particular view.

Just know when to step back or you're going to find yourself doing more harm than good.

Well least thats my view feel free to take my advice or not *L*

Nicely put, EL.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Re: Summing up one line of thought

Originally posted by Pure
Considering Joe's attempted critique:

It's not an attempt. It is a critique. If you don't agree with it, you can say, more accurately "It isn't a convincing critique" or "It is an incomplete critique"... but if you honestly believe it only an "attempt", you obviously have spent no time in the scholarly community and are using the term as some kind of personal platform.

Joe
//It is rationally possible that God did say things that are contained in the Bible. //

The point is irrelevant, regardless of whatever in heck 'rationally possible' means. If a matter of (probable) fact is asserted

Kassiana: Toads do not fly.

it is no refutation, nor even countervailing evidence, to propose a *possibility.*

Joe (hypothetically): It's 'rationally possible' that toads might fly. And, equally rationally possible we can't see them, because they're flying so fast.

I put this in the same category as witnessed (or anecdotal) claims. For instance:

God didn't say anything in the Bible.
Magic isn't real.
Miraciles never happen.

All of these have the same sort of truth value.... which is to say, apart from those many that claim them to be true, there isn't anything more. To say that God didn't say anything in the Bible is to claim to have direct cognitive or evidentiary proof of the proposition. It is perfectly reasonable (and sometimes necessary) to make the point that in the case of examples like these there is an element of "it isn't known, it isn't impossible" for the sake of intelligent entertaining of the point.

The moment we accept that we can "just generally accept as true" things like "God didn't say anything in the Bible" or "Magic isn't real" or "Pagan gods think Wiccans are posers" or any sort of absolute metaphysical claim like them... well, that's when we start substituting "propoganda" for "truth"--it's when we start setting our standards of metaphysical reality pretty low. Isn't that what we're purporting is Christianity's problem?

If you don't know it to be true... don't claim it as true. That's an easy rule to follow and isn't quite on the level of absurdity as "toads can fly".

Joe further said, //If Gods can love, why can't Gods cease to love? If Gods can love why is it impossible for Gods to dislike or punish? We can see how disobeying the rules of a parent can lead to alienation, happens all the time... why is it different on a cosmic scale?//

To Joe: If there is a God or gods whose essence is love/beneficence/'caring for'[His creation] then that cannot cease.

Gods whose "essence" is?

Then there's an implicature that there are gods that are essentially hate/hurtful/wrathful. And if there are, then by what standard are we to hold them in less regard. And if we're not to hold them in less regard, why moralize at all. If all things are equal, then its just matter of subjective preference what you hold in higher esteem. And if that's the case, then the slaughter and torture of Iraqies or Jews or burning witches or any of that is just as reasonable as not doing it.

There is a strange road that "Gods as domains of human emotion" goes.

As to your parental analogy. In other postings you question or reject it. So you're trying to have it both ways. In any case, you give no reason to think God/gods is like an earthly parent with finite patience and mercy, and there are a good many Bible (OT)passages to the contrary, re 'everlasting mercy.'

If you'll re-read, I said I have a problem with parent analogies how they are used, and a particular usage of the parent analogy. I clearly laid out where parent analogies go wrong.

Past that, my comment about how there are parents that ostracize their children or excommunicate them was there to show how there was indeed a problem with parent analogies that only affirm one slice of what parenthood is (Ward and June Cleaver aren't the only kind). I am not in contradiction in that process.

As I don't believe the Bible to be literal (again, "the historical efficacy of the Bible is entirely independant of it's point") for a great many wealth of reasons, I won't really be entertaining arguments from either Christians or anti-Christians using the literalness of the Bible as the primary premise. Its sort of like not choosing to base one's science on e.e.cummings poetry.

 

[stingray61]

Re: Sting response #1

Kassi, before I take the time to answer you please read what Joe has said here and answer that if you can.
--Thanks, but no. I have him on my ignore list so I don't have to read what he says and answer it.

Ok so I will ask you......If your god or gods are so sweet and benevolent how come they allow evil to exist in the world. I would really appreciate an answer because I'd really like to know. I wish I had thought to ask it myself

if you don't think it ever happened then you can't use it as an argument agaisnt God
--I'm not arguing with God. I'm arguing with you. You said you believed this happened. I'm trying to point out to you that this is an immoral and wrong story. Of course I believe it has nothing to do with God and never happened. But YOU believe God murdered innocent people. And apparently you have no problem with that. I'm sorry to see that. I'd think anyone would condemn murder no matter who does it. I'm sad to see people would excuse it based on who does it.

I guess we have to agree to disagree on this one because I have no idea why God would do such a thing and I can't judge it as murder until I do.

is it better to die young and go to Heaven or live to be old and possibly suffer a lot here on Earth, and then die and go to hell?
--There is no hell, so this question is meaningless to me. You might as well ask "Would it be better to die young and go to heaven or die and go to the land of Oz?"

Ok I respect that you don't believe there is a hell. Can you, as a thoughtful and intelligent human, assume for the sake of argument that there is a hell and answer the question?

we as humans can't call it evil
--Oh, yes, we can. I can call female genital mutilation evil. I can call bombing innocent civilians evil. I can call dictators evil. I can surely judge a story attributed to a God and say whether or not it shows evil. And I have. If this were a story attributed to any human being, you admit you'd call it evil. If this were attributed to any other God, you'd call it evil. You only say "we don't have all the evidence" because this story is attributed to YOUR God.

I admit if this was a story about a human being I probalby would call it evil, however, it isn't a story about a human and therefore I can't automatically call it evil. Sorry if that's wrong to you but I can't call the God I believe in evil any more than you can call yours evil.

Sorry. That's the fallacy of special pleading. If it's immoral in all other circumstances, it's immoral in this one. If you HAVE evidence that it isn't, please produce it. But don't expect me to withhold moral judgement because you happen to believe I should treat the God depicted in the Bible in a special way and exempt the Bible stories from evil because you believe I should. I won't withhold moral judgement on leaders of countries because their supporters believe I should, and I certainly won't withhold them on tales of supernatural entities, be they named Allah or Jesus or Mithra, because their followers mistakenly believe their evil actions aren't evil.

Well I don't have the evidence because God hasn't given me any that I currently know of. Then again I don't judge God and even if I did I wouldn't judge Him the same way we would judge humans simply because we can't judge Him that way. And I don't expect you to with hold any judgement, moral or otherwise, I respect your views even though I don't believe in them

God has His reasons and by nature He can't do evil.
--Then to me it makes far more sense to believe that the Jews made up this story and mistakenly attributed it to their God than to believe your God would murder babies. Doesn't it?

Again we have to agree to disgree on this one.

I don't go to Christian apologetic sites any more. To be honest, Sting, they do a worse job than you. At least you admit you'd never murder babies. Often the positions those people take have them endorsing worse than baby slaughters.

LOL thanks for the compliment...I think. In all honesty that's the first site of that kind I went to but it seems to me to be able to answer your questions better than I can. Of course I could be wrong.

Let me say in closing I really appreciate your point of view as it has kept me on my toes.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Thanks, but no. I have him on my ignore list so I don't have to read what he says and answer it.

You gotta know the rules if you wanna play the game.

 

[Pure]

Mistakes

Hi Sting,

I can't tell if you're serious, but to answer your question:


Sting said,

//Pure,

So if I say something about you, you being a moderator and all, and you don't like it do I get the boot from lit? //

Moderators almost never have given anyone, no matter how obnoxious, 'the boot from lit.' Witness Hanns. Certain postings which could create legal problem or which violate the rules the Literotica owners want followed, are sometimes altered or deleted.

In any case, I'm not a moderator here in Author's Hangout. I am at the Story Discussion Circle. There is no moderator at AH, so you can be as nasty as you please (preaching the God of love), within the law and Laurel's rules.

Luc:
//Pure isn't a moderator, he's a pedantic little shit. //

I'm not little.

Cheers,

J.

 

[cloudy]

Re: Mistakes

There is no moderator at AH, so you can be as nasty as you please (preaching the God of love), within the law and Laurel's rules.

Damn, Pure, when you're right, you're right.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Re: Mistakes

Hi Sting,

I can't tell if you're serious, but to answer your question:


Sting said,

//Pure,

So if I say something about you, you being a moderator and all, and you don't like it do I get the boot from lit? //

Moderators almost never have given anyone, no matter how obnoxious, 'the boot from lit.' Witness Hanns. Certain postings which could create legal problem or which violate the rules the Literotica owners want followed, are sometimes altered or deleted.

In any case, I'm not a moderator here in Author's Hangout. I am at the Story Discussion Circle. There is no moderator at AH, so you can be as nasty as you please (preaching the God of love), within the law and Laurel's rules.

Luc:
//Pure isn't a moderator, he's a pedantic little shit. //

I'm not little.

Cheers,

J.

I apologize for my error in calling you little. You are at least a respectable medium.

 

[Kassiana]

Sting response

If your god or gods are so sweet and benevolent how come they allow evil to exist in the world.
--I tend to see this world as a learning experience, a place where we can learn things we need to know, that we couldn't in the realm of the Gods. But I admit I'm not sure.

assume for the sake of argument that there is a hell and answer the question?
--Fine. The below is what I would think if there were verifiable evidence that there is a hell and that kids don't go there. I do not believe there is verifiable evidence of a hell, so do not credit those beliefs to me. Sting's asked for the sake of argument. I don't believe the following paragraph and never will.

If there is a hell and children can avoid it and spend their time blissfully in heaven, I think that all human beings who love children and want the best for them should start killing them right now. Fully fund abortion and encourage people to have abortions rather than have kids. Eternal torture is evil and I think most of us would love to spare anyone we can from it, so yes, if kids get a free ride I think everyone should kill them and then let all other human beings die off so there will be no more need for hell.

in closing I really appreciate your point of view
--Thank you.

 

[Pure]

PS,

Yes, Joe I'd very much like to know who the semiliterate fellow was that, according to you said,

"the historical efficacy of the Bible is entirely independant of it's point"

and source and page. Or perhaps he's fine, and it's a slip of your memory or careless citing that's in evidence.

 

[stingray61]

Re: Sting response #2

What's so hard about saying Christ died for my sins and I am going to live my life following his example?
--Sigh. You don't remember that I said I was a Christian once, do you.

Actually I do remember that but I thought I'd say what I said before in question form this time to appease you a little, and not in a belittling way either.

1. I don't believe that "sin" in the Christian exclusive sense exists. Yes, I believe people do bad things. I don't think their doing bad things is caused by someone eating some fruit "God" didn't want them to have.

2. I don't believe the Bible is a good or accurate record of God, Jesus, morality, or how to treat other people.

Ok fair enough but I have no answer for this part of your post.

Which to say is to "Love everyone as myself and have no other gods before the one true God".
--Ahem. Polytheist. Doesn't believe there's only one "true God." Believes God is present in Kuan Yin and Lord Krishna and Allah and YHWH and Isis and Jupiter and so on. Can't give up that belief because some anonymous Christian who disagrees with my theology tells me to.

LOL@ anonymous. I know what a polytheist is I just didn't know you were one of them. Not asking you to give it up, just asking you to understand the Bible correctly.

tell me why it's so hard for you to do that.
--For the same reason why it's so hard for you to convert to another religion at this point. You believe yours is true and everyone else's is wrong for you. I believe mine is true and everyone else's is wrong for me.

Fair enough. In all honesty while I do believe my beliefs are right for me, I'm not sure everyone elses religion is wrong for me, they just haven't proven it's right for me either.

I don't care if you believe in my opinions or not, just as long as you stop mis-interpreting the Bible.
--I'm sure some people here think you're the one misinterpreting the Bible. I know the people at www.tentmaker.org would think you are. They believe that Jesus' sacrifice DID save all people for all time.

Again, fair enough. I am assuming (man I hate doing that) that by saying, jesus' sacrifice saved all people for all time, that they also believe that all people are going to go to "Heaven" whether they believe in God or not. If that's the case then they must believe that at least the part of the Bible where Christ died for our sins was true, and if they believe that then they are leaving out a great deal of Biblical passages that tell us how we are to be saved. IMO that's just wrong

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

So, because I'm on ignore, someone feel free to relate this question to Kass:

So, the Jews were a learning experience in WWII? Or Rwanda was/is a learning experience? Unfortunately, "learning" as an experience doesn't seem to be as good as it could be. If the Gods loved, we wouldn't have to learn in those ways.

 

[Kassiana]

A lot of Biblical passages are contradictory. But there are some verses which seem to indicate that God intends/wants all people to be saved. The Universalists simply take those to mean that God, being omnipotent, wouldn't let his wishes be thwarted and thus his purpose WAS accomplished and all people were saved. Those Christians who aren't Universalists explain away those passages using other passages which contradict them.

For me, I'm glad I don't have to any more. I don't have to worry about trying to make verse X agree with verse Y.