About a deity full of love and compassion

[Koldo]

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?

Faith doesn't constitute proof to this.
Overcoming bad things also doesn't constitute greater good by itself.

 

[Koldo]

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

Unknown third person? Surely you are not talking about God, are you?

 

[Koldo]

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.

What fallacy is he using?

Your post does no good to counter his statement at all.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Faith doesn't constitute proof to this.
Overcoming bad things also doesn't constitute greater good by itself.

You are just looking to argue.

My faith was forged in the face of mortality, derived from empirical evidence, validated through experimentation; and now hangs in my closet. I know that what I call faith is congruent to what (at least the local) Christians call faith; as we have enjoyed fellowship through the Holy Spirit.

All of which is irrelevant, as I said - faith in humanity - which is of the more secular variety.

The humanity I see, looking back, of course; numbers in the trillions. Looking back from across the cosmos, to this little blue marble; thinking -

I am humanity. I am the greater good.

 

[Koldo]

You are just looking to argue.

My faith was forged in the face of mortality, derived from empirical evidence, validated through experimentation; and now hangs in my closet.

Now that is better said.

The humanity I see, looking back, of course; numbers in the trillions. Looking back from across the cosmos, to this little blue marble; thinking -

I am humanity. I am the greater good.

Oh my God, what an inflated ego

 

[ellenjanuary]

Now that is better said.

Thanks. I may be a mathematician, but I am also a poet; sometimes my passion obscures clarity. Working on it.

Oh my God, what an inflated ego

Arrogance, actually. I got the arrogance. Working on that too; but in the context, the "I" that was speaking was the collective will of humanity - or whatever we evolve into.

 

[Thief]

Some here have yet to step up.

Perhaps I'm not yet understood.

Take your immediate labels for God...and drop them.

Replace with.....
bigger,faster, stronger, more intelligent, and greatly experienced.

And He might not be a..... 'respecter of persons'.

God gave Man dominion.
The ills of this life are dealt by chance...or your fellowman.
Who are you blaming?

 

[Falvlun]

Some here have yet to step up.

Perhaps I'm not yet understood.

Take your immediate labels for God...and drop them.

Replace with.....
bigger,faster, stronger, more intelligent, and greatly experienced.

And He might not be a..... 'respecter of persons'.

God gave Man dominion.
The ills of this life are dealt by chance...or your fellowman.
Who are you blaming?

No matter what you say, man does not cause earthquakes. Or tsunamis.

And if God is even more powerful than I can imagine, then there is even less excuse for his inaction.

 

[Koldo]

Some here have yet to step up.

Perhaps I'm not yet understood.

Take your immediate labels for God...and drop them.

Replace with.....
bigger,faster, stronger, more intelligent, and greatly experienced.

And He might not be a..... 'respecter of persons'.

God gave Man dominion.
The ills of this life are dealt by chance...or your fellowman.
Who are you blaming?

Funny that you don't even give a decent reply.
Why should i think you are right, and i am wrong?
What makes you have the illusion you are correct above all others?

Make your case, or just go away.
Simply stating that other people are wrong is not getting anywhere.

You are not ready to step up, are you?

 

[ellenjanuary]

No matter what you say, man does not cause earthquakes. Or tsunamis.

Have you not heard of the HAARP technology?

And if God is even more powerful than I can imagine, then there is even less excuse for his inaction.

Absolute power / conserves. God may be the focus of your ire, but god is not your target.

 

[atanu]

What fallacy is he using?

Your post does no good to counter his statement at all.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2397195-post172.html

 

[Falvlun]

Have you not heard of the HAARP technology?

No, I haven't. What is it? *ish curious, precious*

Let me restate: It is possible for man to trigger earthquakes, volcanos. There is some evidence to suggest that climate change is leading to bigger, badder hurricanes. I don't think we've had much to do with tornados, though. But, this doesn't negate the fact that largely, and for the most part, humans don't cause natural disasters. They existed before humans, and they'll continue to exist after we are long gone.

I mean, did the dinosaurs bring that meteor upon themselves?

Absolute power / conserves. God may be the focus of your ire, but god is not your target.

Honestly, God's not the focus of my ire. Thief is.

Lack of consistency too. There has to be internal consistency.

 

[Koldo]

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2397195-post172.html

You haven't understood what she said, right?
You really haven't....

She was saying that it is a fallacy when people consider letting children die and "crossing over into the kingdom" as two different things. Because they are the same thing.

She was NOT saying that 9-10th_Penguin's argument was a fallacy.
She was just adding to what he said from a different perspective.

I hope you can see it clearly now.

 

[atanu]

You haven't understood what she said, right?
You really haven't....

She was saying that it is a fallacy when people consider letting children die and "crossing over into the kingdom" as two different things. Because they are the same thing.

She was NOT saying that 9-10th_Penguin's argument was a fallacy.
She was just adding to what he said from a different perspective.

I hope you can see it clearly now.

Did you see the "killing" part?

----letting children die (i.e. "killing" children) and "crossing over into the kingdom" are two different things. ----

I said

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

 

[atanu]

I do not have problem to accept that I might have understood Willamena wrongly -- there is every possibilty of that happening. She will explain.

To me the statement "--if killing children is good, then allowing children to live is bad--" is an over-reach. No one claimed that killing children was good. So, it is a connotation fallacy to begin with.

 

[Koldo]

Did you see the "killing" part?

Yes, so what?
Willamena doesn't seem to support your argument at all in that post.

I said

This part of your text is unrelated.
It is a reply to a different part of his statements.

If you want to make a connection between both then please go ahead.

 

[Willamena]

You haven't understood what she said, right?
You really haven't....

She was saying that it is a fallacy when people consider letting children die and "crossing over into the kingdom" as two different things. Because they are the same thing.

She was NOT saying that 9-10th_Penguin's argument was a fallacy.
She was just adding to what he said from a different perspective.

I hope you can see it clearly now.

No, I said they are two different things, and the fallacy is thinking that what applies to one ("bad") must apply to the other. The other can be "good".

To illustrate: is it possible, in some people's eyes, to die and not enter the kingdom?

 

[Willamena]

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.

I rented the movie to watch. (You made me curious.)

In my own personal view, suicide is unacceptable because the reasons for doing it are false, or at best inadequate: life sucks; I've nothing to live for; I hate (insert thing here); I hate myself; I can't live without (somebody), etc. I don't mean to trivialize the pain anyone feels, but to recognize that these things --that derive from pain, from hatred, from self-victimization, from anger, from everything that's "wrong with the world" --are a result of wrong-thinking/wrong-relationship with the world. Practicing right-thinking/right-relationship is always an option.

I believe that religions, in general, enforce a taboo on suicide because it represents wrong-being/relationship in contrast to right-being/relationship. The latter is love.

 

[Koldo]

No, I said they are two different things, and the fallacy is thinking that what applies to one ("bad") must apply to the other. The other can be "good".

To illustrate: is it possible, in some people's eyes, to die and not enter the kingdom?

Therefore, I humbly apologize to atanu.

I understood the exact opposite.

And to your question : The mainstream line of thought answer is "no" if you are talking about children.

 

[Koldo]

So, let us continue the debate:

How is that letting children die and "crossing over into the kingdom" are different things?
How can you separate them?