About a deity full of love and compassion

[Koldo]

Well, signs are supposed to have a variety of interpretation --not just one for each interpreter, either, but as many interpretations are there are "takes" of the sign. That's what makes for good signification. What's important for a sign is its significance to the "taker" at any given moment, so if "God" spoke to you in a sign sent, it would be a message only for you, and only for that moment. Unique case. We paint the world here and now.

I get what you're saying --one glorious universal sign, painted in reality, that says, "I'm here, and I care." But each of us has a unique relationship to the world around us, and we assign the world similarly uniquely. What may be obvious to one need not be obvious to any others.

While it is true that signs may not be obvious to everyone, there are some that are more clearly obvious than others.

 

[atanu]

Then you have the same problem that I pointed out in response to atanu: if killing children is good, then allowing children to live is bad.

Do you mean to say that if a movie is begun, it should never end? It seems that you are judging the happenings from your perspective.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This was part of John Emil List's rationale for killing his entire family. He was convicted nonetheless.

Right - as a general rule, we reject this type of rationalization as abhorrent. Rightly so, IMO.

However, somewhat realated to this: I heard an interesting point a while back that I think makes sense: every religion that preaches an afterlife that's better than the life we have now has to have a prohibition against suicide, otherwise the most rational course of action is to simply kill onesself and go straight there.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you mean to say that if a movie is begun, it should never end?

No, I don't mean to say this. In fact, I can't even see how this follows from what I said before.

 

[atanu]

No, I don't mean to say this. In fact, I can't even see how this follows from what I said before.

You can't?

Suppose your birth is start of a story. Did you remember starting this story or do you know why it started at all?

 

[PolyHedral]

You can't?

Suppose your birth is start of a story. Did you remember starting this story or do you know why it started at all?

But aren't we assuming that ending the story is a good thing?

 

[Willamena]

Then you have the same problem that I pointed out in response to atanu: if killing children is good, then allowing children to live is bad.

I think the fallacy here is that letting children die (i.e. "killing" children) and "crossing over into the kingdom" are two different things. While one may be "bad" the other may be "good" without a conflict of logic.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Reminds me of the R&P days... us atheistic types would get up a good head of steam versus the religious righteous, and some believer would do a drive-by with the -

So... it's alright to kill babies?

And what happens? Rationality is lost to irrational assumptions. Lemme clear that up -

Yes. It is alright to kill babies; better for food, rather than sport, but... what are we arguing here? Does the collective will so easily dissolve into disassociated avatars, who suddenly worry about appearances? Who don't want their neighbors to know they endorse infanticide? Who are so - uncertain - about their own compassion, that they must frequently remind the herd, that I - I - am a logical, rational, considerate and caring being?

Know what that is? Moral ambiguity. And moral absolutism would be? When god dictates that I must slice and dice the fruit of my loins - but it is the will of god, yer honor! Where do we go wrong?

How about, right from jump street? Right from - life is precious. Show me the evidence. Life is not precious, it is ubiquitous, it is obnoxious; it is the one environmental factor you cannot escape. That is precious? Or... do you mean, the soul... Yeah, there's all kinds of evidence for that, it's in the Bible! It must be true! That source, that talks about its immortality, its divine providence; sounds kinda - durable, rather than fragile...

So, what are we really talking about? Ourselves.

[youtube]XDtjLSa50uk[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDtjLSa50uk&feature=player_profilepage

There's your evidence. One cannot - can not - successfully project the mind of adult upon the mind of child. That's what we do, when we empathize, when we "attribute mental states" to other people; when we follow an evolutionary imperative to know the mind of another.

And we cannot truly project our minds, our comfy, web-surfing, beer drinking psyches; upon an individual whose entire environmental circumstance is reduced to fifteen seconds long by five feet deep. That is what it is, to face one's own mortality; I do it joyously, even if the video shall record my choking upon my entrails.

So, what are we arguing about? Survivor guilt? The injustice of nature; to quake the earth (in earthquake-prone areas) and roil the sea (in tsunami-prone areas)?

Or that everybody could not be here, with me, drinking the beer? Yeah, that's a tragedy.

 

[Koldo]

Reminds me of the R&P days... us atheistic types would get up a good head of steam versus the religious righteous, and some believer would do a drive-by with the -

So... it's alright to kill babies?

And what happens? Rationality is lost to irrational assumptions. Lemme clear that up -

Yes. It is alright to kill babies; better for food, rather than sport, but... what are we arguing here? Does the collective will so easily dissolve into disassociated avatars, who suddenly worry about appearances? Who don't want their neighbors to know they endorse infanticide? Who are so - uncertain - about their own compassion, that they must frequently remind the herd, that I - I - am a logical, rational, considerate and caring being?

Know what that is? Moral ambiguity. And moral absolutism would be? When god dictates that I must slice and dice the fruit of my loins - but it is the will of god, yer honor! Where do we go wrong?

How about, right from jump street? Right from - life is precious. Show me the evidence. Life is not precious, it is ubiquitous, it is obnoxious; it is the one environmental factor you cannot escape. That is precious? Or... do you mean, the soul... Yeah, there's all kinds of evidence for that, it's in the Bible! It must be true! That source, that talks about its immortality, its divine providence; sounds kinda - durable, rather than fragile...

So, what are we really talking about? Ourselves.

[youtube]XDtjLSa50uk[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDtjLSa50uk&feature=player_profilepage

There's your evidence. One cannot - can not - successfully project the mind of adult upon the mind of child. That's what we do, when we empathize, when we "attribute mental states" to other people; when we follow an evolutionary imperative to know the mind of another.

And we cannot truly project our minds, our comfy, web-surfing, beer drinking psyches; upon an individual whose entire environmental circumstance is reduced to fifteen seconds long by five feet deep. That is what it is, to face one's own mortality; I do it joyously, even if the video shall record my choking upon my entrails.

So, what are we arguing about? Survivor guilt? The injustice of nature; to quake the earth (in earthquake-prone areas) and roil the sea (in tsunami-prone areas)?

Or that everybody could not be here, with me, drinking the beer? Yeah, that's a tragedy.

I have no idea of what is your point.
And i don't think i am the only one.

 

[Thief]

The question's perfectly valid. I think it's just that you realize the implications of it and don't like either possibility:

- if you think it's good to watch the child die, then you're immoral.
- if you think it's bad to watch the child die, then you implicitly condemn the God who watched every needless death throughout history without helping.


But some deaths are better than others, aren't they? Some lives are better than others. People suffer... sometimes to death. If this suffering can't be helped, then so be it, but with an omnipotent, omniscient God running around, there's nothing that "can't be helped".


It's not a matter of likes and dislikes. If a claim is correct, then its implications will be consistent with reality. What do you think that the claim of an all-powerful, all-loving God implies about the existence of suffering?


Then you have the same problem that I pointed out in response to atanu: if killing children is good, then allowing children to live is bad.

From the point of view you suggest, Andrea Yates shouldn't have been arrested; she should've been given a medal as mother of the year, no?

I mean, she realized that once her children acheived the age of reason, they might sin or reject Christ and thereby end up in Hell, but if they died then and there, they'd be assured of Heaven... so she made sure that this happened. In the model of reality you suggest, Andrea Yates' murder of her five children was a perfectly rational, loving act.

You looking at things from a small minded view.
Step up.

 

[ellenjanuary]

You looking at things from a small minded view.
Step up.

'Sup with these peeps, huh?

 

[ellenjanuary]

- if you think it's good to watch the child die, then you're immoral.
- if you think it's bad to watch the child die, then you implicitly condemn the God who watched every needless death throughout history without helping.

How about, don't watch? How about, geography?

But to continue down the Champs Elysée, is bad! Perhaps, you need, a higher perspective. That it is good to watch the children die; for the antibiotic-resistant strain of TB they carry would be the doom of us all. You think it is oh-so simple - I love, I can comprehend God's love - when, in fact; all of you speak of a greater good.

What of time? What if that special child had to die now, so that some other unspecial child; could rise to greatness later? Would you like to sit there, beyond time, weighing scales...

And crying for an eternity as those that you most loved could not see you love by the glint of life, and yet, you move the pieces. As you must.

Are you that general? Or, is your role, Chamberlain?

 

[Koldo]

You looking at things from a small minded view.
Step up.

Argument by Dismissal?
Fallacy!

Better luck next time.

 

[Koldo]

How about, don't watch? How about, geography?

But to continue down the Champs Elysée, is bad! Perhaps, you need, a higher perspective. That it is good to watch the children die; for the antibiotic-resistant strain of TB they carry would be the doom of us all. You think it is oh-so simple - I love, I can comprehend God's love - when, in fact; all of you speak of a greater good.

What of time? What if that special child had to die now, so that some other unspecial child; could rise to greatness later? Would you like to sit there, beyond time, weighing scales...

And crying for an eternity as those that you most loved could not see you love by the glint of life, and yet, you move the pieces. As you must.

Are you that general? Or, is your role, Chamberlain?

I understand your point of view, however, i don't think it fits our current society. Holding your point of view, we shouldn't need to have laws against murder, for example. Maybe if some people get killed, others even betters will rise to greatness, right? Who knows? So why stop people from killing one another?

You have no proof that every natural event will bring a greater good, and yet you claim that such is the case. So, claiming that events made by humans, such as murder, belong to a different standard would be hypocrisy.

 

[Thief]

Argument by Dismissal?
Fallacy!

Better luck next time.

Care to expand on that?....prepared to 'step up'?

 

[Koldo]

Care to expand on that?....prepared to 'step up'?

Always.
Are you?

 

[atanu]

But aren't we assuming that ending the story is a good thing?

No. There is no assumption. OTOH, when an unknown third person is blamed then there may be.

 

[ellenjanuary]

I understand your point of view, however, i don't think it fits our current society. Holding your point of view, we shouldn't need to have laws against murder, for example. Maybe if some people get killed, others even betters will rise to greatness, right? Who knows? So why stop people from killing one another?

You have no proof that every natural event will bring a greater good, and yet you claim that such is the case. So, claiming that events made by humans, such as murder, belong to a different standard would be hypocrisy.

Is not my point of view. Is my compassion for those that do hold such view.

My point of view is the necessity of moral absolutism, and did I not imply; that moral absolutism justifies the righteous kill? Yeah. There is work to be done.

You have no proof that every natural event will bring a greater good - oh, but I do. Faith. Not in god, in god's image; that humanity will overcome. One day look back, and wonder; did we really bicker, so?

 

[atanu]

So, what are we arguing about? Survivor guilt? The injustice of nature; to quake the earth (in earthquake-prone areas) and roil the sea (in tsunami-prone areas)?

Or that everybody could not be here, with me, drinking the beer? Yeah, that's a tragedy.

Yes. And the root mistake IMO, is to fail to ask who takes birth and who dies.

 

[atanu]

However, somewhat realated to this: I heard an interesting point a while back that I think makes sense: every religion that preaches an afterlife that's better than the life we have now has to have a prohibition against suicide, otherwise the most rational course of action is to simply kill oneself and go straight there.

It does not happen that way. If you have seen the Ninth Gate (film) you may understand right away. I do not know about other religions but taking one's own or another's life is considered the gravest sin in Hinduism. There is fallacy in your argument that I may not be able to explain fully. But I will try.

Though I don't know Who I am, but I boast "I did this" or "I did that great thing". No one says "I did that evil thing". But that also is imprinted in mind, nonetheless, and all these imprinted memories drive us without our conscious knowledge.

'Going over to other side through effortless wisdom' and 'killing' are two opposite things. The former is erasing the memories made up of desires and preferences -- the toughest job and yet the result is effortlessness.

All this is besides the point, however.