33%

Serious discussions on politics, religion, and the like.

33%

Postby doctor100 » Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:55 am

Elohim, ostensibly, is primarily characterized by His love for us, and yet because such love requires the existence of free will, He then had to send us all to be tortured inescapably forever. He then found this state of affairs so unsatisfactory that He had to sire/manifest Himself as a human being - a trick He could evidently only do once - then allow Himself to be tortured to death... and, by even the most lenient and tolerant definitions of "Christian", that still only saved about 1/3 of us. I don't know about you, but no school I ever attended accepted 33% as a passing grade. - See more at: http://leftoversoup.com/#sthash.xKWr7gpI.dpuf


I once came across a man who gave rather freely from his convience store when asked, forgave thieves regularly, discounted to the poor; yet despite all this, maintained a stern enough character that his inner city black neighborhood demanded of him. I asked him about his religion; he explained to me that he would'av called himself a christain, but didn't because he didn't much care for characteristics of those people who did call themselves christians. And reading into it, he would rather claim deism and practice than be labeled with someone whose archtypes he didn't like. So, he claimed no religion at all. (he was slightly red skinned, with genes that curl the hair).

My own "Christianity" differs from TK's so much.

Free will was created to improve the universe; choices being between better(good) and worse(evil). God is Good; to love God is also to love Good.
"He then had to send us all to be tortured inescapably forever"- this thing we call life, AKA First Heaven or First Hell.
He then sent Christ to teach the spirit of Good; --> through his teachings, the world has been saved from a much worse(evil-hell) Life.

Of course, that explanation leaves a great deal out. But this would be a universal type of "Salvation" (being saved from troubles), brought to the whole world "through" the life of Christ.
Particularly considerign that so much of morality is emotional based 'not to hurt people' 'don't be mean' 'build community' 'listen' 'be humble', a logical answer doesn't present itself, the problems exist in an emotional framework.
User avatar
doctor100
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 7:21 pm

Re: 33%

Postby Merle » Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:46 pm

Um...

what?
Neither a creeper nor a jackass be; if you manage these two things, everything else should work itself out.
User avatar
Merle
 
Posts: 860
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:12 am

Re: 33%

Postby Horizon » Wed Aug 21, 2013 8:38 am

Look at his signature. It will explain things.
Pronouns: Active/Passive/Possessive: They/Them/Their.
Orientation: Asexual
Likes their partners the way they like their coffee: they don't like coffee.

Writes a Homestuck/Worm crossover called Hope Springs Eternal, on Spacebattles.
User avatar
Horizon
 
Posts: 1755
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 8:34 pm
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

Re: 33%

Postby doctor100 » Thu Aug 22, 2013 6:02 pm

hem*

My religion comes closer to complex theology rather than sweeping generalizations.

My first point was the answer I provide for why freedom of choice exist; why evil exist at all.
    It was TK's position stated that freedom of choice exist because it was needed in order to choose to love God. I do not dispute his position; though I would lend it a rather different understanding. My position is that freedom of choice exist to "make the universe a better place". Without life (and choice) the universe is a barren place, devoid of all but primitive beauty, devoid of joy, or love. Choice is provided as a long-term arrangement, a process which takes longer than it takes solar systems or galaxies to form. By viewing what is good, by viewing what is evil, choices are made, always toward the path of what is good. From primitive to civilized, the universe becomes a better place . . . because of choices.

To say it differently, life shews the difference, choice changes life.

The second, and perhaps third point leads to many meanings.

"heaven" and "hell" have many meanings.
    Both the stars and the afterlife are heaven; so is a life filled with love.
"salvation" is a strange word.
    It's most literal translation says that a fireman who rescues a cat is that cat's salvation. The role that Christ plays in salvation is manifest in many ways-including perhaps the cultural outrage that comes from oppressing the poor, or generations of teaching to not become angry. This does not yet consider his position as a counselor during judgement.

Of course, I don't think that the physical world will cease to exist-nor the human race; which leaves to question-What happens after THAT Judgement? OR the one AFTER that?

Oh, neither do I attribute damnation to anyone who does not profess. (the point above was the man was "christian", even if he did not call himself that)
Particularly considerign that so much of morality is emotional based 'not to hurt people' 'don't be mean' 'build community' 'listen' 'be humble', a logical answer doesn't present itself, the problems exist in an emotional framework.
User avatar
doctor100
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 7:21 pm

Re: 33%

Postby snowyowl » Thu Aug 22, 2013 6:21 pm

doctor100 wrote:It was TK's position stated that freedom of choice exist because it was needed in order to choose to love God. I do not dispute his position; though I would lend it a rather different understanding. My position is that freedom of choice exist to "make the universe a better place". Without life (and choice) the universe is a barren place, devoid of all but primitive beauty, devoid of joy, or love. Choice is provided as a long-term arrangement, a process which takes longer than it takes solar systems or galaxies to form. By viewing what is good, by viewing what is evil, choices are made, always toward the path of what is good. From primitive to civilized, the universe becomes a better place . . . because of choices.
(emphasis mine)
The "always towards the path of what is good" statement is almost exactly the opposite of my understanding of free will. The reason freedom of choice is a theological problem is because people are free to choose evil. I can meet a beggar in the street and I can choose to ignore her. In fact, I frequently do just that (but not always).

Oh, I don't doubt that people usually choose the good option. We have an entire thread about how the world is getting better and better lately. But if it weren't for free will, people could be made to always choose the good option. Free will has a hell of a cost: namely, every bad thing that ever happened that could have been prevented by someone acting for good. Is it worth that cost? I'm not convinced it is.

You also gave a different reason: free will gives meaning to joy and love. Without the existence of evil, there's no reason to value good. Which is an argument I don't like. It seems to me that it's a poor state of affairs if the best of all possible worlds still has to have bad things happen occasionally, just to remind people what could be happening to them. Not much of a best of all possible worlds, if there's built-in room for improvement.
... in bed.
User avatar
snowyowl
 
Posts: 1175
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 6:05 pm

Re: 33%

Postby fnordstar » Fri Aug 23, 2013 12:43 pm

This all sounds fine to me, it's a respectable theology. But I'm not sure what kind of response you want.

I know that all Christians aren't like Gina in this comic. Though what she says reminds me of the Christians I grew up knowing. But that just proves that not all versions of Christian theology are sensible. There's people of all faiths with ideas that aren't sensible. If your aim was to prove Christianity isn't just weird Hell stuff, you're exactly right.

But if your aim was to convince others of your ideas, this isn't enough. I can't see the logical necessity of what you're saying. There's not much that suggests others should believe this too. I'd be interested to know what makes you think this, though.
fnordstar
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2013 2:38 am

Re: 33%

Postby Merle » Fri Aug 23, 2013 12:49 pm

snowyowl wrote:Oh, I don't doubt that people usually choose the good option. We have an entire thread about how the world is getting better and better lately. But if it weren't for free will, people could be made to always choose the good option. Free will has a hell of a cost: namely, every bad thing that ever happened that could have been prevented by someone acting for good. Is it worth that cost? I'm not convinced it is.


The problem with the idea of forcing everyone to always choose the good option can be boiled down to: Define "good".
Neither a creeper nor a jackass be; if you manage these two things, everything else should work itself out.
User avatar
Merle
 
Posts: 860
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:12 am

Re: 33%

Postby RyukaTana » Fri Aug 23, 2013 4:05 pm

Merle wrote:
snowyowl wrote:Oh, I don't doubt that people usually choose the good option. We have an entire thread about how the world is getting better and better lately. But if it weren't for free will, people could be made to always choose the good option. Free will has a hell of a cost: namely, every bad thing that ever happened that could have been prevented by someone acting for good. Is it worth that cost? I'm not convinced it is.


The problem with the idea of forcing everyone to always choose the good option can be boiled down to: Define "good".


I define 'good' (in the good-evil spectrum) as 'selflessness' (or at least 'self-sacrifice'), and that is why I value good as ideally better, but not practically better, than evil. Selflessness is not a virtue I'd consider particularly valuable in the long run.

As for snowy's comment. I'd say that if free will is not worth the cost of the negatives, that life is not worth living. However, since I don't think 'free will' makes people evil, rather stupidity and ignorance make (and more notably, enable) evil, I'd say it's totally worth it. It's the difference between 'cost' and 'value'. Free will doesn't *require* evil, it just leads to it in humans.
"Yamete, oshiri ga itai!"
RyukaTana
 
Posts: 1014
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:01 pm

Re: 33%

Postby doctor100 » Sun Aug 25, 2013 1:52 pm

What is good can be seen from the observed difference from what is not good.
Particularly considerign that so much of morality is emotional based 'not to hurt people' 'don't be mean' 'build community' 'listen' 'be humble', a logical answer doesn't present itself, the problems exist in an emotional framework.
User avatar
doctor100
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 7:21 pm

Re: 33%

Postby Merle » Mon Aug 26, 2013 8:37 am

doctor100 wrote:What is good can be seen from the observed difference from what is not good.

That still leaves the problem of definition.

"What is snurple can be seen from the observed difference from what is not snurple."
Neither a creeper nor a jackass be; if you manage these two things, everything else should work itself out.
User avatar
Merle
 
Posts: 860
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:12 am

Next

Return to Serious Business

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest