If Dasa was right, maybe I am going to come back as a cockroach. And it's not just the irresistible moral coherence of the threat ~ what a complete bummer it'd be to return as a cockroach, he also said 'if it is true, then it is true, regarldess of whether you think it is true'. The cockroach karma I didn't get, to be honest, not on the face of it, not in and of itself, but when he suddenly said 'if it is true, then it is true', it swung it for me. No need for any moral arguments after that.
@fmf saidYou are attempting to bulldoze through the fact that you made an improper statement here:
If Dasa was right, maybe I am going to come back as a cockroach. And it's not just the irresistible moral coherence of the threat ~ what a complete bummer it'd be to return as a cockroach, he also said 'if it is true, then it is true, regarldess of whether you think it is true'. The cockroach karma I didn't get, to be honest, not on the face of it, not in and of itself, but when ...[text shortened]... id 'if it is true, then it is true', it swung it for me. No need for any moral arguments after that.
https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-proof.181437/page-51#post_4065302
The obligations that Christians think they have to their God figure are a matter for Christians only.
Because, if they are true, they are meaningful to everyone. Thus the concept that Christians have that they must share the good news and the light with others is really a necessity, just as how a Muslim or a Hindu or a Buddhist would be compelled to share the same.
We may not agree with what the future holds, but surely, we can all agree that the future will be very significant for a great many of people.
I say this not to be contentious nor to shame anyone -- which is why I will stop debating this point because whatever point I made becomes useless if it is wrapped in spiteful argumentation.
@fmf saidThis will be a semantics based argument.
Of course it is, don't be silly. All religious doctrines are ideologies.
Here is the first definition I get when searching DuckDuckGo:
n.A set of doctrines or beliefs that are shared by the members of a social group or that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.
Theoretically, this does apply to religion as well. However, the reasons that I deny that Christianity can be an ideology are twofold:
I. There are many ways to be a Christian and there is no monopoly on the exact set of beliefs that one must have. Indeed, one of the reasons that the Orthodox are not Catholic is because we do not believe that the theological points can be so over-developed to the point where they have brought them.
But is also true to say that we cannot develop a single, absolute, unyielding ideology that encompasses Christianity.
II. Abbot Tryphon has told us to not turn our religion into an ideology. He has made a distinction here that is meaningful to me, and I enjoyed his brief talk on the topic, so I will forever avoid trying to make a circle around what Christianity is and instead respect the differences that we may all have.
@fmf saidRight, that would be the case if I did not provide a justification.
Stating stuff is one thing. Regurgitating rote-learned dogma is just stating stuff. Making a coherent justification for the demented vengeful supernatural violence you believe is morally sound is something else.
But I had stated:
Since the punishment is premised entirely on those who have made no effort to be united with God and have chosen to not have Faith in Him, why would you not deserve to be separate from God for 55,000 years, 120,000 years, and 3,000,000 years?
It's what has been asked for either through direct rejection of God or through the constant & flagrant trespassing of his laws that also counts as a rejection.
That was the rationale: those who choose to not be united with God will not be forcibly united with God in the sense that they will be forced to enter into His Kingdom.
@philokalia saidYour Christian beliefs have no traction with non-believers. Stuff like 'It is because it is' and 'If it's true then it's true' and as some here - like sonship, KellyJay and SecondSon say - 'You'll see I was right when you die', which has no more or less purchase, is just pointless post filler that people who don't meet the likes of you are spared. The point is, none of you can make any credible moral argument in favour of the torturer god ideology that non-superstitious people can sign on to, and that's why you end up riffing on stuff akin to, 'If it's true then it's true'.
You are attempting to bulldoze through the fact that you made an improper statement here:
https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-proof.181437/page-51#post_4065302The obligations that Christians think they have to their God figure are a matter for Christians only.
Because, if they are true, they are me ...[text shortened]... this point because whatever point I made becomes useless if it is wrapped in spiteful argumentation.
1 edit
@philokalia saidReligions provide people with ideologies. If you want to live your life saying that the set of doctrines or beliefs that are shared by the members of your religion are not an ideology, and that denying it confers something upon your doctrines and beliefs that the term ideology does not, then that is your prerogative.
This will be a semantics based argument.
Here is the first definition I get when searching DuckDuckGo:n.A set of doctrines or beliefs that are shared by the members of a social group or that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.
Theoretically, this does apply to religion as well. However, the reasons that I deny that Christiani ...[text shortened]... make a circle around what Christianity is and instead respect the differences that we may all have.
@philokalia saidSee the reasons that are making up the content of many of my subsequent posts.
Why not?
@philokalia saidStop debating whenever you want. Post as you see fit. Nothing "spiteful" is going on here.
I say this not to be contentious nor to shame anyone -- which is why I will stop debating this point because whatever point I made becomes useless if it is wrapped in spiteful argumentation.
@fmf saidFor the fourth time, my statements were not to argue on behalf of the rightness of my position, but to argue against the incorrect statement you made here:
Your Christian beliefs have no traction with non-believers. Stuff like 'It is because it is' and 'If it's true then it's true' and as some here - like sonship, KellyJay and SecondSon say - 'You'll see I was right when you die', which has no more or less purchase, is just pointless post filler that people who don't meet the likes of you are spared. The point is, none of you can m ...[text shortened]... e can sign on to, and that's why you end up riffing on stuff akin to, 'If it's true then it's true'.
https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-proof.181437/page-51#post_4065302
@fmf saidOh, so what was the meaning of
See the reasons that are making up the content of many of my subsequent posts.
The obligations that Christians think they have to their God figure are a matter for Christians only.
Is that the obligations which Christians have are absurd, and certainly do not exist, and thus do not matter to anyone but Christians?
That would be the full version of the statement?
@philokalia saidI am not suggesting that you shouldn't share your uncoherent "good news" about the torture of biliions and biilions of non-Christian people after they die for rejecting your religion and how it all makes perfect sense how they all deserve it etc. etc.
Because, if they are true, they are meaningful to everyone. Thus the concept that Christians have that they must share the good news and the light with others is really a necessity, just as how a Muslim or a Hindu or a Buddhist would be compelled to share the same.
What I am suggesting is, stuff like 'If it turns out to be true then it will have turned out to be true' and stuff like 'YOU have to prove to ME that those billions and billions DON'T deserve to be tortured for eternity' and various mythology-based assertions of the 'It is because it is' kind or the 'It's not just my opinion, it's the truth' kind, will get you nowhere and certainly do not sound divinely inspired.
@philokalia saidIt means that Christians should live their lives according to their Christian dogma if that's what they feel they should do.
Oh, so what was the meaning ofThe obligations that Christians think they have to their God figure are a matter for Christians only.
Is that the obligations which Christians have are absurd, and certainly do not exist, and thus do not matter to anyone but Christians?
That would be the full version of the statement?
@philokalia saidIf, for example, a Christian believes that me having sex with a man or a woman I am not married to is "fornication" and "sin", then that's OK - but of no consequence - to me. It's only of consequence to his fellow Christians.
Oh, so what was the meaning ofThe obligations that Christians think they have to their God figure are a matter for Christians only.
Is that the obligations which Christians have are absurd, and certainly do not exist, and thus do not matter to anyone but Christians?
That would be the full version of the statement?
@philokalia saidMy statement was not silly or bumbling.
For the fourth time, my statements were not to argue on behalf of the rightness of my position, but to argue against the incorrect statement you made here:
https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-proof.181437/page-51#post_4065302
'[INSERT MORAL NONSENSE HERE] might be true, and if it's true then it's true' ... is not an assertion that turns moral nonsense into a moral imperative that applies to the reality of everyday living or even relevant to it. Save it for someone else ~ a fellow believer perhaps.