If Hell is a place of eternal torment

[Hockeycowboy]

Yes, basically so. ...of course, there are those who die at such a young age that we would have to question what sort of fair chance could they possibly have been given. To me, God will mitigate, but I can't offer Scripture to prove this, nor can I afford to be dogmatic about it.


I believe, for both fundamental and theological reasons, that homosexuality is wrong by using evidences that are set before me, and available to everyone. Biologically, there is a deviation from the natural use of one's body as to what gender sexual intimacy, and especially copulation, is compatible with. All life as we know it subsists based on the principle of gender, we cannot survive without this acknowledgment and compliance. Theologically speaking, which cannot be imposed on everyone, God's design demanded the distinction of the two in both constitution and purpose.

Thus, Meow-Mix, I believe that there are grounds for you to know the difference, by one, ontologically speaking, and two, one's emotions should never dictate morality. I'm a man, and I like women, but, my emotions often take me to immoral areas in regard to that relationship. ...it is incumbent upon me to suppress those feelings - I do not make laws that approve of them. I may have an inordinate or perverted attraction to women, this must be circumvented. We have become grossly desensitized in this world, we do not see how evil that we all are (in God's eyes, or not).

Be careful of what you approve of MM, we cannot always trust our feelings. But, to the point, ignorance may not be a viable excuse as to why one might remain skeptical about God and his standard of morality and means towards salvation.

Hey DNB, you seem quite honest.

Here is what I believe re: death…. Romans 6 7 says that ‘the one who has died has been acquitted from their sin.’ And a few verses later, in vs.23, it states “the wages of sin is death.” (No torment involved, if at death they are acquitted.)

As far as the dead themselves, they “know nothing” (Ecclesiastes 9:5); they go “back to [the] ground.” — Psalms 146:3-4. Cf. Genesis 3:19

Doesn’t this fit better with a loving God?

Take care.

 

[Meow Mix]

Many acts that we perform are insidious, many people do not realize the character that it destroys when we indulge in certain activities. Things that appeal solely to the flesh (role playing, toys, fetishes, ..) are superficial and show a disregard for the persons involved - these acts are insatiable, they never leave one content and invariably become a vice. I imagine that this conclusion may be controversial or subject to contention, but that is definitely and unequivocally my experiences.

First: unless you have misspoken, it appears as though you cede sexual activities aren't necessarily a vice; but rather that they can become one.

You state that in your experience, anecdotally, this is always the case. Perhaps it is (I don't know): for you, perhaps. Some personalities are prone to addiction to this or that, but not every personality. For instance, and I don't mean to be crass, I've used toys during sex (or alone), and I wouldn't call this a vice; I'm certainly capable and willing to have vanilla, no-toy sex with a partner.

Second: you say that these things "show a disregard for the persons involved," but I don't understand this accusation. In what sense does bringing a sex toy into the picture show disregard for a partner?

People take for granted that just because we can't visualize or quantify the damage done, then there has been no consequence. But, I will affirm: show me the sexual practice, and I'll show you the character. ...tell me MM, that you wouldn't notice a distinct dichotomy in character between a person who is monogamous and conservative in their sexual standards, as opposed to one who is either promiscuous or practices S & M?

I have been what you would likely call promiscuous: if I'm not in a relationship commitment and opportunities arise, I might seize them (e.g., I meet someone interesting at a bar or a show, and take her home: which may or may not lead to anything else). When I am in a relationship commitment, I'm monogamous faithfully: I do not break my word, implicitly or explicitly given, to those whom I give it to.

While I abhor pain (giving or receiving), I've engaged in bedroom power politics (so, someone being dominant and someone being submissive) in more subtle ways.

Technically I've fulfilled both of your cautionary statements is what I'm getting at here, but I'm not sure what "dichotomy in character" you're trying to warn about: I'm not an unsavory character. Most people find me pleasing to be around or to converse with. I consider myself successful, having finished by BS in physics and working on a bridge from my MS to PhD as we speak. (I am late in doing this, being in my 30's, but I suffered an accident that rendered me unable to speak, which sort of threw me for a major loop in my 20's having to figure out my entire life all over again; living with this disability).

Is it possible that you have a caricature in mind of people that don't treat sex like this massive taboo, something which only vagabonds and scoundrels involve themselves with? Because I have sex -- lesbian sex, no less (and I only say this because that's supposed to be "bad" somehow) -- yet I work a full time job while turning an MS into a PhD in astrophysics, maintain healthy relationships with family and friends, and contribute to my community whenever there is time (I've been an activist politically and with charity since my 20's). If something is wrong with my character despite this sex-having, I'm not sure what it would be.

(I don't claim to be perfect, of course, but I feel like the point can be made).

Consent does by no means determine whether an act is immoral or not. Many chose to smoke cigarettes, over eat, drive too fast, over drink, etc... Two consenting adults has no bearing on their ability to discern right from wrong, ...especially when, again, certain acts are not quantifiably destructive.

Everything you listed is quantifiably destructive, though: if you're to make an analogy to something that doesn't harm anybody, why do you have to refer to acts which very obviously do harm somebody?

Where's the connection to merely existing as a homosexual? Who does that harm?

This is an ongoing debate between the experts whether one is born homosexual or not. I'm in no position to challenge you on this, but I do know that certain desires can be either acquired or curbed, at least from my own experiences.

I attempted to be straight twice: during nearly all of high school (because I was terrified of the things I was feeling and the things that I knew people thought about them! I grew up in a small midwestern town, I was not an idiot, and I knew what people would have thought). I dated boys as best I could, but it was only lying to myself: it was only hurting myself to try. Have you ever lied to yourself before for four years on something so fundamental? Perhaps you have: but I want to impress how much a girl can wish so earnestly that she wasn't different and therefore hated and ridiculed and scorned by others. Wish as I might have, I couldn't help who I am.

I tried again after Mom died, and I picked up Christianity as a crutch (I am not saying this is what all Christians do, I am just being honest about my experiences). I had just moved out on my own, was living in a college town. I figured God would want me to try as hard as I could to like men instead of women, so I tried. This whole thing was my refuge from that pain of loss, so I am fully admitting up front that I wasn't in a right state of mind, I was full of grief. But I did try, I thought maybe dating more intellectual college men would help: it did not.

I stopped hating myself and trying to be someone I wasn't over time: when I started figuring out that I was never a Christian for the right reasons in the first place (I had no intellectual basis for doing so, only emotional ones). As I matured I started figuring out that there was no reason to be ashamed of who I was and for being attracted to who I was attracted. It was a hard fought battle to even be comfortable with myself.

I don't expect my anecdote to change your mind about it, but maybe it gives you more of an idea what it's like: imagine having someone tell me that I "chose" this, especially when I was staring at the ceiling every night wondering what was wrong with me only because the people around me insinuated something was.

Then, just to carry the anecdote further, I fell in love: because I understand the weight of the word, I don't count every infatuation as this word. But I did, I found romantic love with a woman I was with for seven years. We almost married. Over a long period of time, we gradually became different people -- it happens even to heterosexuals -- and we split amicably. But it hurts my heart even to this day not to wake up beside her, even though it's best that we don't (different people now, and all that: she'd never be happy, I'd never be happy). I will always love her, and she will probably always love me. Nobody can cheapen that, or call it something less than the love two heterosexual people might have. And I hope that I ever feel that way about someone again (and I'm sure I will).

Yes, but not as comprehensively as two distinct genders can, I believe.

I'm not sure about this. People are so vastly different, within sexes and genders, and between sexes and genders. And I'm not sure how much it really matters.

I'm a feminine woman, and I may be a lesbian, but I'm not really attracted to masculine women. I date other feminine women. So in these cases, I suppose this would be lacking in your worldview that you've expressed (there is perhaps less complementarianism between two feminine women than between a masculine man and feminine woman, or even a masculine woman and feminine woman). I have never felt anything lacking about this, though. I feel like this is what family and friendships (really, chosen family) are for. If I need masculine traits in somebody, I turn to them; and they have my back.

I was referring to my own desires also as being deficient or misguided. I'm attracted to women, and yet my desires in that area can lead to very perverse and offensive thoughts. I hold myself just as accountable as anyone in having unhealthy desires. Again, to me, certain acts are unhealthy to one's spirit whether or not we can visualize the damage that readily. ...there will be obvious effects to one's character between a person who choses to do nothing but play video games all day, where another prefers to be more industrious. Or, especially between those who are philanthropic, and those who are not. The difference in character will be quite evident.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I have sat lazily and played video games some days, but I have also been very active in my community. I feel like you may have this notion of people as cartoonish caricatures that are very one-dimensional, with little depth or variety within the same person. Do you think that might be the case?

A person can be earnest, charitable, and just while also being a person with an active sex life or that plays video games in their spare time, or whatever. People are complicated. Some of these things can certainly be vices, but just because some people don't control themselves or exercise temperance doesn't mean those things are bad in and of themselves. Even when you mentioned drinking somewhere above, you had said "over drink," implying that it's the excess that's really the problem. N'est-ce pas?

I believe that He did, but you're not looking in the right places for it - don't assume that where there is no complaint, that there is no harm...

Thanks MM!

And so this wraps back to the original supposition: it would be more just for God to give us an informed choice if there is a choice to make.

I could understand how it would count if we're given functioning moral compasses: it registers to me as wrong to hurt somebody, it registers to me as wrong to hurt myself, it registers to me as wrong to steal something that isn't mine, so on and so forth. If God exists, I'd say this counts as giving me information: should I do one of these things, I know I have wronged, and I would feel guilty for it. I would feel remorse.

But since this got side-tracked a little bit by me raising the example of my being a lesbian, I think it's a good question: if this is somehow wrong, why wouldn't God have given me a moral compass that says so? Why make me like this in the first place, why set people in my path that I’ll desperately fall in love with, bond with emotionally, why have only mostly beautiful things come out of this?

Tying into this, we have my point about the honest skeptic (which, I know you were skeptical of existing, but which I can very clearly introspect exists, being one myself). I have these moral intuitions, and that's all that I have to go on. All these different religions say that this thing is bad or that thing is bad, but many of these taboos don't register at all on a moral scale. I don't think that eating shellfish is a moral problem, I don't think my loving women and failing to be attracted to men is a moral problem.

As far as I can tell, morality is about suffering and victimhood: these are the only things that trigger my internal "this is a moral question" alarm.

If there's something besides that, I would have to know that to be the case. And that seems to come back to God and God giving us enough information to make informed choices in order to be just.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
As far as I can tell, morality is about suffering and victimhood: these are the only things that trigger my internal "this is a moral question" alarm.

If there's something besides that, I would have to know that to be the case. And that seems to come back to God and God giving us enough information to make informed choices in order to be just.

For the ... Good post!

Now for morality at its core that is what you describe. In practice there is a bit more:
1. There is this: Heinz dilemma - Wikipedia
2. Moral luck: Moral Luck | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
3. Is the veil of ignorance possible: Original position - Wikipedia

So sum up. Morality seems to includes different cognitive stances and different assumptions about how we deal with the luck of being born into different circumstances. And that includes different understandings of what suffering and victimhood are.

Regards

 

[Meow Mix]

For the ... Good post!

Now for morality at its core that is what you describe. In practice there is a bit more:
1. There is this: Heinz dilemma - Wikipedia
2. Moral luck: Moral Luck | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
3. Is the veil of ignorance possible: Original position - Wikipedia

So sum up. Morality seems to includes different cognitive stances and different assumptions about how we deal with the luck of being born into different circumstances. And that includes different understandings of what suffering and victimhood are.

Regards

I don't disagree. My ethical theory is value-based, and I do not think that we consciously choose our own values (I think that a hard/strong form of doxastic voluntarism is false).

So for instance, a person's response to the Heinz dilemma will depend on their value hierarchy: we may value different things that might even come into conflict with one another; at which point we must decide which is more fundamental.

For instance, I value property and I value life: these might come into conflict in this very dilemma: is it OK to steal to save a life? My values would say "if it's necessary, and there are no further complications, then yes." In my worldview, our moral decisions are all a complex calculus based on these hierarchies of values we possess. Every wrinkle in a dilemma just makes the calculation more difficult, which is how and why we encounter moral paralysis where we can be unsure which choice is most in line with our own values.

 

[DNB]

Hey DNB, you seem quite honest.

Here is what I believe re: death…. Romans 6 7 says that ‘the one who has died has been acquitted from their sin.’ And a few verses later, in vs.23, it states “the wages of sin is death.” (No torment involved, if at death they are acquitted.)

As far as the dead themselves, they “know nothing” (Ecclesiastes 9:5); they go “back to [the] ground.” — Psalms 146:3-4. Cf. Genesis 3:19

Doesn’t this fit better with a loving God?

Take care.

I believe that God has clearly manifested His love towards us all, if not by creation alone, but also by the free gift of Redemption. All that He has asked from us is to be good to one another, and give Him the honour and reverence that is undeniably due. Why in the world are there those who rebel against this? I think that we fail to see the egregious nature of atheism, selfishness or hedonism. What parent would tolerate such contempt and defiance from their own children, or why should they?

Thus, man deserves punishment, including myself. But, as I stated earlier in this thread, God is not inflicting the torment towards the unrepentant, it is their own conscience, frustration and regret that will be perpetually burning within them - they, in fact, will be punishing themselves. An extremely commensurate pronouncement against them. God is not the sadist by offering them love and life, but warning of the consequences of not being faithful and considerate to one another. By their own uncoerced volition, they have overtly and emphatically rejected God and His Kingdom.

I know that annihilation sounds much more attractive (which I mentioned before, and would like to favour at times), but I feel that Jesus was quite specific about the eternal consequences of the reprobate's behaviour (eternal suffering - not irrevocable death).

 

[DNB]

First: unless you have misspoken, it appears as though you cede sexual activities aren't necessarily a vice; but rather that they can become one. You state that in your experience, anecdotally, this is always the case. Perhaps it is (I don't know): for you, perhaps. Some personalities are prone to addiction to this or that, but not every personality.Second: you say that these things "show a disregard for the persons involved," but I don't understand this accusation.

Sex that is derived from the love of a person, is acceptable. If it is elicited from eroticism, as in being seduced by their body parts or provocative clothing, this, in my opinion, will lead to misguided activity.
Using external and inanimate objects to either stimulate another, or oneself, reflects a lack of appreciation for the potential affection that a human can give to another. There is a desperation there, for we all know that we'd prefer a live human being rather than a blow-up doll (for example), any day. Therefore, introducing such a foreign and antithetical (to love) device into a relationship, will lead to becoming dependent upon things other than the what is actually desired, human affection (hopefully). This is the vice aspect - no one gets addicted to wholesome items (vegetables, sports, construction, planting, etc..), but rather to things that give quick gratification - but not a meaningful or lasting one.

I have been what you would likely call promiscuous: if I'm not in a relationship commitment and opportunities arise, I might seize them When I am in a relationship commitment, I'm monogamous faithfully:

Which do you prefer, one partner or multiple, i.e. from which type of relationship did you learn or grow the most? Bear with my explanation here please: any gang banger or street punk can sleep around with many people, but it takes a real mature person to be able to sustain a relationship and find a quality partner. Little boys who think that they're men, run from one relationship to another, while the real men accepts the responsibility of making their partner feel secure, loved and strengthened. Is it possible MM, to not see the difference in character between the two different types of characters or attitudes just described?

Technically I've fulfilled both of your cautionary statements is what I'm getting at here, but I'm not sure what "dichotomy in character" you're trying to warn about: I'm not an unsavory character. Most people find me pleasing to be around or to converse with. I consider myself successful, having finished by BS in physics and working on a bridge from my MS to PhD as we speak.

To me, you sound liked a bit of a paradox, then? You have an appreciation for intellect, challenges and growth, but then why do you indulge in cheap relationships, that, again, even the uncouth and degenerate are fully capable of engaging successfully in (like I did when I was 16 yrs old)?

(I am late in doing this, being in my 30's, but I suffered an accident that rendered me unable to speak, which sort of threw me for a major loop in my 20's having to figure out my entire life all over again; living with this disability).

I am so sorry to hear about this, ...but thrilled that it appears to not have debilitated you spiritually and intellectually. God bless that you will be able to sustain the attitude that you now have (except fore the atheist part )

Everything you listed is quantifiably destructive, though: if you're to make an analogy to something that doesn't harm anybody, why do you have to refer to acts which do harm somebody?

That was simply to make the point that consent does not equal beneficial or inconsequential. Because, again, what I referred to as destructive, were activities that did not appear to be detrimental from the outside - so i used tangible examples to make that particular point.

Where's the connection to merely existing as a homosexual? Who does that harm?

Yourself! I never liked myself when I lived a rather wayward life (stealing, lying, sleeping around). No one would've called me a confident, wise or mature person at that point in my life. This, to me, is an inextricable fact.

I attempted to be straight twice: during nearly all of high school (because I was terrified of the things I was feeling and the things that I knew people thought about them! . I dated boys as best I could,

This, I cannot relate to, but I do understand your point about why would anyone invite such a stigma upon them if it could be avoided. Thus, I am in no position at the moment, to question the sincerity and extent of your efforts to circumvent your uncontrived desires. Please bear with me here, as I'm not even sure if I could succeed at what I'm about to say. That is, as a Christian, who believes that this world is not the ultimate goal, might think it more prudent to abstain from something that one knows will displease God, than rather to enjoy oneself for a very short time on earth not knowing what the full ramifications of my actions will be. Again, I believe that this sentiment is a prudent one, but I am not convinced as to how effective that I will be in trying to pull it off.

I found romantic love with a woman for seven years. We almost married.
I'm not really attracted to masculine women. I date other feminine women. (there is perhaps less complementarianism between two feminine women than between a masculine man and feminine woman). .

Love is a very elusive, rare and confusing emotion. I know what it's like to be insecure, and thus desiring just to have anyone affirm my worth. Or, to be over confident and blind, as to allow a gem to slip by my hands. Or, even to think that i was in love, when I wasn't actually. Not that any of these dispositions apply to you, necessarily, but when people speak of their love and admiration for another, I don't, as a rule, just assume that it's a fully qualified love. Sorry MM, I don't mean to making light of what you shared with you former partner, but just as I would expect you to question my understanding of love, I always remain reserved when people talk about love - it's the most powerful sentiment to have, but I believe that very few, including myself, ever experience it to such an overwhelming degree. ...enough to make one never go back to their old ways (why settle for 2nd best). ...which, coincidentally, alludes to my previous point, how can you compare the power of a true relationship, with that of a frivolous and superficial one night stand? One is for the mature and wise, while the other for the foolish and irresponsible - how can there not be an overt character definition determined by what we chose?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I have sat lazily and played video games some days, but I have also been very active in my community. I feel like you may have this notion of people as cartoonish caricatures that are very one-dimensional, with little depth or variety within the same person. Do you think that might be the case?
A person can be earnest, charitable, and just while also being a person with an active sex life or that plays video games in their spare time. Some of these things can certainly be vices, but just because some people don't exercise temperance doesn't mean those things are bad in and of themselves. When you mentioned "over drink," implying that it's the excess that's really the problem. N'est-ce pas?

Pas du tout! You are extremely studious and do not sound like a slouch at all, if you have your moments of leisure, you are entitled. I was specific when I said 'all day long' meaning, definitively so. We all know the type. Which again, I can tell, to a large degree, of your education and character just by the dialogue that you and I are having, as much as, I imagine, that you have been assessing me also. This is inevitable, and cannot be concealed. I have already determined, to some extent, the type of person that I am speaking with i.e. lazy, uneducated, astute, productive, kind, malicious, etc...whatever it may be. What one practices or endorses, will invariably define their character. Now, whether or not that there is a corollary between their sexual practices and their demeanor, is where you and I are debating. I say, for the reasons or illustrations that I previously gave, an unequivocal yes.

And so this wraps back to the original supposition: it would be more just for God to give us an informed choice if there is a choice to make.
I could understand how it would count if we're given functioning moral compasses: it registers to me as wrong to hurt somebody or myself, or to steal something , .... If God exists, I'd say this counts as giving me information: should I do one of these things, I know I have wronged, and I would feel guilty for it.
Tying into this, we have my point about the honest skeptic (which, I know you were skeptical of existing,). All these different religions say that this or that thing is bad but many of these taboos don't register at all on a moral scale. I don't think that eating shellfish is a moral problem, I don't think failing to be attracted to men is a moral problem. morality is about suffering and victimhood: And that seems to come back to God giving us enough information to make choices in order to be just.

Well, dietary laws were abrogated, so we understand the symbolic nature of that type of legislature. Equally the feasts and festivals alluded to something greater, as they have also been revoked.
Again, I can only say that what I did in the past may not have a quantifiable repercussion, it incontrovertibly affected my state of mind. The more righteously that I behave, the more confident that I feel - i.e. I know that I am trustworthy - it builds character. If I have a habit of sleeping around, and I was to meet a girl who did not, how can I convince myself that I'm worthy of her, or convince her that I won't have those temptations when we're together - it would be a very hard-sell, even to myself. Now, I understand that you claim that you were able to go from one life-style to the other, without compromising or second guessing either mode. But, you must admit that this is rather an unconventional conviction - theoretically, the two dispositions are not compatible.
Sorry, I digressed slightly - God has given both you and I enough rationale and conscience to both alert and analyze if an act is truly practical, or that it defies both common sense and justice. Biology demands what is the most pragmatic manner to conduct ourselves in physical relationships, either human, mammal or insect. This is the 1st and major fundamental point. The, either vulgarity, selfishness, lack of self-control, hedonism or bimboism, that i have witnessed from most promiscuous people that I've met (including strippers, prostitutes, junkies, etc..), have taught me of the destructive nature of certain carnally minded activities. Again, even the monkeys and dogs know how to copulate in excess (mature people are not so easily enticed or seduced - they strive for quality.).
I keep referring back to this principle, because this is where the unwise don't recognize the foolishness or repercussions of their ways - God has made the consequences of their behavior evident to all. I believe that God has offered all of us an informed choice.

 

[DNB]

Sorry MM if I didn't address all your points on your last reply to me, or that I truncated a lot of your responses - I surpassed the 12,000 character limit by over 1,000 characters, and had to continuously shave away as many areas that I could...
Thanks!

 

[Meow Mix]

Post 1 of 2

Sex that is derived from the love of a person, is acceptable. If it is elicited from eroticism, as in being seduced by their body parts or provocative clothing, this, in my opinion, will lead to misguided activity.
Using external and inanimate objects to either stimulate another, or oneself, reflects a lack of appreciation for the potential affection that a human can give to another. There is a desperation there, for we all know that we'd prefer a live human being rather than a blow-up doll (for example), any day. Therefore, introducing such a foreign and antithetical (to love) device into a relationship, will lead to becoming dependent upon things other than the what is actually desired, human affection (hopefully). This is the vice aspect - no one gets addicted to wholesome items (vegetables, sports, construction, planting, etc..), but rather to things that give quick gratification - but not a meaningful or lasting one.

First: We may just disagree on whether toys reflect a lack of appreciation, or that there's desperation to their use. They don't replace human interaction, they're meant to change things up and enhance it.

Second: Actually people do get addicted to some of the things you mentioned, particularly sports. People with addictive personalities can get addicted to basically anything. It doesn't mean that the things themselves have anything wrong with them.

Which do you prefer, one partner or multiple, i.e. from which type of relationship did you learn or grow the most? Bear with my explanation here please: any gang banger or street punk can sleep around with many people, but it takes a real mature person to be able to sustain a relationship and find a quality partner. Little boys who think that they're men, run from one relationship to another, while the real men accepts the responsibility of making their partner feel secure, loved and strengthened. Is it possible MM, to not see the difference in character between the two different types of characters or attitudes just described?

That there exist people without the mindset for long term relationships doesn't mean that all short term relationships are bad. I've been single for a long time precisely because I wasn't ready for a while after my last relationship (and I was open about this fact to people I saw in short term capacities, several of which are still friends), but then also because school was a higher priority to me than the level of emotional and time commitment I'd have to give to someone I'd genuinely want to see long term.

There is a place for both long term relationships and more ephemeral connections, in other words. I don't see anything wrong with this. Mature adults can handle this appropriately: we can't have this mindset that just because some people can't, that nobody should.

To me, you sound liked a bit of a paradox, then? You have an appreciation for intellect, challenges and growth, but then why do you indulge in cheap relationships, that, again, even the uncouth and degenerate are fully capable of engaging successfully in (like I did when I was 16 yrs old)?

Because adults are capable of interacting with other adults in mature ways. If I feel like going on a date but I'm pretty sure I don't want anything long term, I can be open about this: she either accepts this or she doesn't. Sometimes it turns into a long term thing anyway because someone turns out to be a good fit anyway. Human interactions are complex, but they're not this completely indecipherable jungle. All people have to do is communicate with one another and understand one another: empathy, earnestness, and honesty.

Some people don't care for shorter relationships, and that's fine: it doesn't mean that their preferences apply to everyone. I don't think the two compete because a) sometimes one turns into the other, and b) they are different things and adults can decide at any given time what kind of connections they want in their lives.

I am so sorry to hear about this, ...but thrilled that it appears to not have debilitated you spiritually and intellectually. God bless that you will be able to sustain the attitude that you now have (except fore the atheist part )

It hasn't quite managed to keep me down since the initial shock period ^.^ <3

That was simply to make the point that consent does not equal beneficial or inconsequential. Because, again, what I referred to as destructive, were activities that did not appear to be detrimental from the outside - so i used tangible examples to make that particular point.

...

Yourself! I never liked myself when I lived a rather wayward life (stealing, lying, sleeping around). No one would've called me a confident, wise or mature person at that point in my life. This, to me, is an inextricable fact.

Being a lesbian has never harmed me: society has harmed me for it, but that's not my fault. It isn't at all like stealing or lying (which clearly have victims). As for sleeping around, this depends entirely on what a person is doing: it's certainly possible to victimize (by being unsafe, by being callous and completely objectifying someone, etc.), but that isn't always necessarily the case. There are mature adults that are able to have sex without harming themselves or one another. People that aren't capable of that have the problem, it's not the sex that's the problem. (It is perfectly fine for someone not to want to have sex: I am not slamming people that choose not to).

This, I cannot relate to, but I do understand your point about why would anyone invite such a stigma upon them if it could be avoided. Thus, I am in no position at the moment, to question the sincerity and extent of your efforts to circumvent your uncontrived desires. Please bear with me here, as I'm not even sure if I could succeed at what I'm about to say. That is, as a Christian, who believes that this world is not the ultimate goal, might think it more prudent to abstain from something that one knows will displease God, than rather to enjoy oneself for a very short time on earth not knowing what the full ramifications of my actions will be. Again, I believe that this sentiment is a prudent one, but I am not convinced as to how effective that I will be in trying to pull it off.

And this is the tack that some people take when they adopt various religions if they're gay: they abstain. That is their choice, and it's valid. However, this goes back to sort of needing to have a good reason to believe God exists, and needing a reason to believe that God is benevolent, and that God's desires are benevolent and not just arbitrary, malicious, or capricious.

Like I have said, there is no reason to think being gay is somehow morally wrong: it doesn't hurt anybody, it's just people being attracted to each other that might be a bit different than many people in society, but that doesn't make it wrong. It doesn't trigger mental moral alarms like stealing or lying or assault would; it's not even like smoking where a smoker realizes that they're hurting themselves long term. There's nothing to indicate anything is wrong with it other than society finding it to be different than what many of them are used to.

If it's somehow wrong, and it's wrong because God says so (and I will not get into the philosophical problems with morality being based on God's whims), then it seems incumbent on God to make sure I even know He exists to even know which of God's whims are actually real, because as far as I can see, there are a lot of religions claiming to have a lot of gods that are all claiming to have this or that taboo that seem on their face silly and needlessly restrictive to me any my moral compass (I am not trying to be offensive in calling things silly, just giving my point of view).

Imagine if God commanded that we not eat fish on Tuesdays if there is a full moon, but we weren't sure whether God exists or not, and not sure which one if so, so on and so forth: would you not eat the fish on Tuesday under a full moon if the admonition was prima facie ridiculous as far as you could tell, and you had no reason to believe the admonition was real?

Now imagine if the admonition is prima facie ridiculous ("how does this hurt anybody," you might wonder), but actively harms people: psychologically scars them, assaults them, makes them feel dirty just for existing, all because of the way the society around them treats them for something they can't even control.

Love is a very elusive, rare and confusing emotion. I know what it's like to be insecure, and thus desiring just to have anyone affirm my worth. Or, to be over confident and blind, as to allow a gem to slip by my hands. Or, even to think that i was in love, when I wasn't actually. Not that any of these dispositions apply to you, necessarily, but when people speak of their love and admiration for another, I don't, as a rule, just assume that it's a fully qualified love. Sorry MM, I don't mean to making light of what you shared with you former partner, but just as I would expect you to question my understanding of love, I always remain reserved when people talk about love - it's the most powerful sentiment to have, but I believe that very few, including myself, ever experience it to such an overwhelming degree. ...enough to make one never go back to their old ways (why settle for 2nd best). ...which, coincidentally, alludes to my previous point, how can you compare the power of a true relationship, with that of a frivolous and superficial one night stand? One is for the mature and wise, while the other for the foolish and irresponsible - how can there not be an overt character definition determined by what we chose?

I'm aware that I can't convince you that I know what love is, so I won't try: that's either a claim you believe or you don't. I take no offense as I have nothing to prove, I know what I can introspect myself and I'm aware I can't share introspection.

You ask how we compare a loving relationship with a one night stand, and my answer again is: we don't. They are different things. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with a one night stand if it happens to happen. I really enjoy a good rare steak, but sometimes a Wendy's asiago chicken sandwich hits the spot as well: obviously this analogy is incomplete and invites the accusation that I'm only thinking about myself/being selfish, so I'll just pre-empt that response by pointing out that I agree casual sex where the personhood of the partner is ignored are morally questionable. Otherwise I think I've talked about casual sex and how responsible adults can do this in ways that aren't morally wrong elsewhere in this response (which will likely be split into two responses at this point, so you know what I mean).

(Continued next post)

 

[Meow Mix]

Post 2 of 2

Pas du tout! You are extremely studious and do not sound like a slouch at all, if you have your moments of leisure, you are entitled. I was specific when I said 'all day long' meaning, definitively so. We all know the type. Which again, I can tell, to a large degree, of your education and character just by the dialogue that you and I are having, as much as, I imagine, that you have been assessing me also. This is inevitable, and cannot be concealed. I have already determined, to some extent, the type of person that I am speaking with i.e. lazy, uneducated, astute, productive, kind, malicious, etc...whatever it may be. What one practices or endorses, will invariably define their character. Now, whether or not that there is a corollary between their sexual practices and their demeanor, is where you and I are debating. I say, for the reasons or illustrations that I previously gave, an unequivocal yes.

I think you have some ideas about relationships between sexual practices and demeanor that sort of monolith people in an unfair way. Your comparisons to sexually active people so far have included "gang bangers," "street punks," implicitly hinted overtures about it being a sufficient condition to be an unsavory character: I think there are more people that have sex that aren't unsavory at all than you think. There are certainly unsavory people that are wantonly promiscuous, but I don't think that's indicative that sexual activity means someone has delinquent character or morality.

Well, dietary laws were abrogated, so we understand the symbolic nature of that type of legislature. Equally the feasts and festivals alluded to something greater, as they have also been revoked.
Again, I can only say that what I did in the past may not have a quantifiable repercussion, it incontrovertibly affected my state of mind. The more righteously that I behave, the more confident that I feel - i.e. I know that I am trustworthy - it builds character. If I have a habit of sleeping around, and I was to meet a girl who did not, how can I convince myself that I'm worthy of her, or convince her that I won't have those temptations when we're together - it would be a very hard-sell, even to myself. Now, I understand that you claim that you were able to go from one life-style to the other, without compromising or second guessing either mode. But, you must admit that this is rather an unconventional conviction - theoretically, the two dispositions are not compatible.

Theoretically to what? 1950's Atomic Family-style thought? (I'm teasing, hopefully this doesn't come off as mean). I genuinely think that there's an entire world of people out there that you may just not be familiar with. There are many people that responsibly engage in premarital sex, without harming anybody (including themselves), with the capability to decide when they want a long term relationship that might turn into a marriage and when they aren't ready for that or simply don't want that at a given time. This is not an uncommon skill. This is just being a mature adult.

There are certainly people that aren't capable of doing this in a mature way, but that's true for anything: there will always be somebody that does a thing wrong, or selfishly, or to excess, etc. We shouldn't judge motorcycle riders for the idiots that ride around without safety gear or helmets, weaving in and out of traffic, for instance. For many people it's a legitimate mode of transportation and a hobby they enjoy responsibly. (I know nothing about it so that's as far as I can go with that analogy, ha! ^.^)

Sorry, I digressed slightly - God has given both you and I enough rationale and conscience to both alert and analyze if an act is truly practical, or that it defies both common sense and justice. Biology demands what is the most pragmatic manner to conduct ourselves in physical relationships, either human, mammal or insect. This is the 1st and major fundamental point. The, either vulgarity, selfishness, lack of self-control, hedonism or bimboism, that i have witnessed from most promiscuous people that I've met (including strippers, prostitutes, junkies, etc..), have taught me of the destructive nature of certain carnally minded activities. Again, even the monkeys and dogs know how to copulate in excess (mature people are not so easily enticed or seduced - they strive for quality.).
I keep referring back to this principle, because this is where the unwise don't recognize the foolishness or repercussions of their ways - God has made the consequences of their behavior evident to all. I believe that God has offered all of us an informed choice.

So, I wasn't going to bring this up at all (because I thought it would be distracting, but perhaps it's important), but I feel like now I will: you mention strippers having a destructive nature, compare it unfavorably even to monkeys and dogs, so on.

But you're talking to someone that paid for her undergrad physics degree by stripping. I'm not alone, either: some of my friends that I still have from those days include a yoga/aerialist/barre instructor, real estate agent, and audio engineer.

I don't feel like we did anything wrong. We all got through school without having to take out loans (at least until now, grad school is stupid expensive per credit hour honestly). We were in our 20's so I'm not going to claim to have been paragons of maturity or anything like that, but I just don't see the problem. There are certainly problematic situations that can happen, but this wasn't it.

----------

So, this was a lot (I'm enjoying the discussion). I'll summarize by reiterating two important things from my side of the discussion:

1) Sex isn't immoral. When mature adults are sex-positive and they go about their lives in responsible ways, there's no problem. The problems arise in irresponsible people doing thoughtless and selfish things (and no, I do not agree that things like using toys with partners is selfish). There are so many people that I think you're unaware of that don't treat sex as this massive taboo; and it even seems to me that treating sex like this massive taboo is where many of the problems even arise from in the first place (among adults, I mean).

Of course there are people that are addicted, but I can't stress enough: that's their problem, not sex's. An adrenaline junkie weaving through traffic on a motorcycle through traffic isn't evidence that all motorcycle riders are hooligans.

2) If any of these taboos on things that don't harm people are actually bad in some way because God says so (and again, we'll dodge, for now, the debate about whether God's whims can define morality, e.g. Euthyphro's Dilemma), then it's incumbent on God to make sure we're equipped with that information: perhaps through working moral compasses, or by telling us, or if the holy texts are where God wants us to get the information, God needs to make sure we have good reason to believe those texts are real and not just myths, etc. Leaving room for reasonable doubt is not a benevolent thing to do if we're going to be judged for things we have no good reason to think are wrong.

(This is why I wasn't going to mention stripping: at a certain point I'm talking about things so far outside your comfort zone that it will be harder for you to consider at all what I'm saying. But I judge that you are actually listening to me, even if you ultimately disagree: just as I am listening to you. So be it).

 

[BilliardsBall]

We can't let you into our special club due to arbitrary rules, so the only option is to douse you in gasoline and immolate you.

Why would a god gift people with the ability to reason only to expect them to forgo its use?

It sounds like a Roman Catholic, not a biblical Hell. Have you read the account of a person in perdition in Luke 16, who has a discussion with the patriarch Abraham (and they both use logic) while he is suffering?

 

[BrightShadow]

If one starts from a wrong or false premise then the conclusion would be wrong as well.
To understand what is God's plan behind eternal damnation - we need to start at the beginning by understanding what is "eternal" and what is "damnation" from our creator's prospective... Not our prospective!
When a young child wrongfully or even accidently dies - we immediately consider it to be a tragic event for the deceased child. We feel sorry! But why? What if we knew God's plan behind the early demise of the child? What if God erased the kid's memory and put his or her soul in heaven where he/she is extremely happy? From God's point of view - no significant or permanent harm was done to the kid even though he died early because God can reverse anything or erase everything. So what's the harm? Why do we feel sorry for the kid? Why do we feel the kid didn't get to live a full life? What if getting to heaven early is actually a good thing?
To understand the reason behind damnation - we also need to know what is God's plan and what criteria God will use to judge us and what God expects from us!
We need to understand the history behind why we were even created in the first place and when were our souls first created and why are we being sent to this hostile earth one by one? Why such a place is picked with so many creatures, viruses, diseases and natural disasters?
What did we do to deserve this?
If one believes this is a learning place then we can ask - why such a hostile place? If this is a testing ground then why provide us with so little information as to which religion has more accurate info? why someone is born into a religion with more info and why someone born into darkness? Why someone is born into no religion at all? Why not an even playground?
That's why I don't believe it is a learning place nor it is a testing ground but a place where we can try and redeem ourselves and given a second chance at redemption. We probably didn't even deserve salvation!
But what did we do? Did we do something in our soul form prior to being sent to this world?
Did we commit an original sin? No! I am not talking about Adam eating the apple! Because I believe it is illogical to think everyone can be punished for one person's sin. So, did we all somehow offend God? Did we all question his absolute authority? If so then why we don't remember it?
The lack of information provided to us and the hostile nature of earth makes me believe - that is exactly the case! We somehow offended God and this is all we deserve! Our memory has been erased and we are sent here for our second chance at redemption.
If one believes that this world is a learning place or a testing ground and we have to use our moral compass to figure out right from wrong then in my opinion that would be a wrong conclusion!

Moral compass is not reliable because moral compass can be calibrated according to one's selfish needs!

One person's moral compass says eating meat is wrong (Vegans) and another person's moral compass feels there is no harm in it! Even the plants and trees have life. So why do Vegans feel it is okay to eat plant based food but not animal?
One person's moral compass says squashing a mosquito or a small bug is okay but the same person's moral compass says killing a cat or a dog is wrong. What scale are we using?
One person feels being gay is okay (no harm in it)- while another person feels it's deadly wrong and unnatural? who is right? What does God think?
Who can say what scale God will use to determined who passes the test and qualifies for heaven and who goes to eternal or transitory damnation?
In my earlier post I suggested God could be a bright powerful light (energy). So what if God has a criteria who can join in the light and who not? If we are able to redeem ourselves - we will be allowed to join but if we fail then eternal separation from God could be eternal damnation.
We have to seek and find what God expects of us. I personally believe at some point God created our souls, maybe billions of souls! Then maybe at some point some of us became rebellious and disappointed God. Instead of destroying all the billions of rebellious souls - God created this world to give us a second chance at redemption but with very little information as to what is expected of us. We don't deserve any better! It is a tough testing ground where information is scattered and hidden among multiple monotheistic religions. Out of the billions - many will be reunited and
maybe some not!
This is the only scenario that makes sense to me. I know everyone is entitled to their own opinion and conclusion.

 

[DNB]

First: We may just disagree on whether toys reflect a lack of appreciation, or that there's desperation to their use. They don't replace human interaction, they're meant to change things up and enhance it.

But, again, 'changing things up' replies boredom - misguided sexual activity. In other words, how is it that I, personally, would have the utmost indignation to either, use a toy on someone, or allow them to use a toy on me (i can barely say it)? Am I prude, or rather, self-respecting?
Plus, again, a quick-fix is a sign of misuse. If you're lacking affection, meaning that creativity is not the issue here, then it's time to stop having sex and get to know each other better. Again, toys are for kids.

That there exist people without the mindset for long term relationships doesn't mean that all short term relationships are bad.

Similar to an employer, who sizes-up the potential employee by assessing the historical longevity of his resume. That is, how long did he stay at his previous employments - was he a fly-by-nighter, or a serious and dedicated worker. This is a general paradigm of society, temporal fixes are for the frivolous and impetuous, but the wise both perceive and strive for things that last.

It hasn't quite managed to keep me down since the initial shock period ^.^ <3

Great, I hope that it remains that way!

Being a lesbian has never harmed me: society has harmed me for it, but that's not my fault. It isn't at all like stealing or lying (which clearly have victims). As for sleeping around, this depends entirely on what a person is doing:

Hedonism destroys. No one has ever matured or became enlightened, commensurate to the extent of the activity, by indulging in superficial or carnal activity. It's fleeting, and more often than not, never gratifying - chasing the dragon, if you will. Love is better than sex, and it is no easy task, contrary to what you say, to vacillate from one to the other.

And this is the tack that some people take when they adopt various religions if they're gay: they abstain. That is their choice, and it's valid However, this goes back to sort of needing to have a good reason to believe God exists, and needing a reason to believe that God is benevolent, and that God's desires are benevolent and not just arbitrary, malicious, or capricious

One believes in God, not out of indoctrination, credulity, trepidation, or wishful thinking. We understand the that the universe and life itself is an inexplicable miracle, and that man's nature demands the existence of a spirit within him (for better, or for worse). There is clearly a spiritual warfare going on in this world, the prevalent and perpetual amount of unnecessary hate and evil that exists, clearly denotes that there is an influence that affects man's rationale - who's the fool that decided a man's race determined his worth, or that smoking cigarettes was a good idea?
If you don't believe in God, MM, then at least concede that there is a devil, that again, has turned the creature with the highest intellect on this planet, into a being more inept, incompetent and irrational than a mosquito, monkey or fish. This, is an indisputable, and empirically proven fact.
Thus, the architect of this universe, in order to, first, create it, and then to be able to maintain it in all its providential matters, is no fool? He created you and I, a miracle in and of itself. His ways are not capricious, arbitrary or haphazard, but rather, profound, indiscernible and righteous. We must try to perceive the wisdom behind the precepts and injunctions that He has ordained.
Abstination does promote self-control, and in time, one begins to see the benefit of not being enticed by the flesh or superficial, but by living by the spirit (love, compassion, mercy, support) ..excuse the cliché.

You ask how we compare a loving relationship with a one night stand, and my answer again is: we don't. They are different things. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with a one night stand if it happens to happen. I really enjoy a good rare steak, but sometimes a Wendy's asiago chicken sandwich hits the spot as well:

As fast-food does not compare to the nutritious and long-term value of healthy food - one is being drawn by taste, not pragmatism - one-night stands are for those who are both callous and oblivious to the benefits of fidelity and longevity. It is an extremely difficult proposition, for most people, to get into such an intimate position with another and not feel an attachment afterwards. If marriage is meant to be sacred, or, at least highly regarded and taken seriously, then how can one be so indifferent and frivolous to the exclusive aspect that consummates a marriage?
For, the common sentiment is, once a person experiences something of the utmost quality, it is almost impossible for them to go back to the inferior ways. So how you find it so easy to vacillate between a meaningful relationship, then to a 'wham-bam-thank you ma'am' tryst, is antithetical to the concept of improvement, enlightenment or connoisseur. ...it forces me to question what your definition of love is, or what you've actually experienced.
Sorry MM, I mean that in a theoretical manner, not to disparage anything that you've said, but just to bring attention to the unconventional aspect of what you're proposing.
Thanks!

 

[DNB]

I think you have some ideas about relationships between sexual practices and demeanor that sort of monolith people in an unfair way. Your comparisons to sexually active people so far have included "gang bangers," "street punks," implicitly hinted overtures about it being a sufficient condition to be an unsavory character:

No, I meant that if it's something that even a degenerate could accomplish - and quite competently at that, then there's probably very little glory or edification in such activities.

Theoretically to what? 1950's Atomic Family-style thought? There are many people that responsibly engage in premarital sex, without harming anybody (including themselves), with the capability to decide when they want a long term relationship that might turn into a marriage and when they aren't ready for that or simply don't want that at a given time. This is not an uncommon skill. This is just being a mature adult.

Well, if you're deciding between 2 people for a long-term relationship, and all things being equal except that one has slept around a lot, while the other hasn't, who's the most likely candidate for the position of responsibility and longevity - would you flip a coin? No, you'd take the one that showed the most self-control.

So, I wasn't going to bring this up at all (because I thought it would be distracting, but perhaps it's important), but I feel like now I will: you mention strippers having a destructive nature, compare it unfavorably even to monkeys and dogs, so on. But you're talking to someone that paid for her undergrad physics degree by stripping. I'm not alone, either: some of my friends that I still have from those days include a yoga/aerialist/barre instructor, real estate agent, and audio engineer.I don't feel like we did anything wrong. We all got through school without having to take out loans (at least until now, grad school is stupid expensive per credit hour honestly). We were in our 20's so I'm not going to claim to have been paragons of maturity or anything like that, but I just don't see the problem. There are certainly problematic situations that can happen, but this wasn't it.

Was there anything that you regretted about stripping i.e. how you were either treated or perceived at by the men in the place - where you a piece of meat to them?
Did you fall into drugs or other bad habits by remaining in such an environment for extended periods (rhetorical, no need to divulge, thx!)
Also, if you could have, would you have preferred a different means to earn your tuition - was this a concession on any level?

1) Sex isn't immoral. When mature adults are sex-positive and they go about their lives in responsible ways, there's no problem. The problems arise in irresponsible people doing thoughtless and selfish things (and no, I do not agree that things like using toys with partners is selfish). There are so many people that I think you're unaware of that don't treat sex as this massive taboo; and it even seems to me that treating sex like this massive taboo is where many of the problems even arise from in the first place (among adults, I mean).

It's hedonistic, even teenagers like sex showing how susceptible we are in being enticed by it. And yet, how many people have had good experiences with it, or have suffered abject shame due to it [used, cheated on, objectified, abused, raped, sodomized, pregnant, disease ..) Now, I know that your contention is that a few bad apples do not spoil the institution - but, this is prevalent and by no means isolated issues - I would say that the majority of people, in the majority of their experiences, have had more bad sexual encounters than good. ...I'm not sure if this can be proven one way, or the other?

2) If any of these taboos on things that don't harm people are actually bad in some way because God says so (and again, we'll dodge, for now, the debate about whether God's whims can define morality, e.g. Euthyphro's Dilemma), then it's incumbent on God to make sure we're equipped with that information: perhaps through working moral compasses, or by telling us, or if the holy texts are where God wants us to get the information, God needs to make sure we have good reason to believe those texts are real and not just myths, etc. Leaving room for reasonable doubt is not a benevolent thing to do if we're going to be judged for things we have no good reason to think are wrong.

Many people find wisdom and enlightenment from reading the Bible. They begin to understand God's will, and perceive how things actually work on earth - why the prohibitions, why the suffering, why the discretion on God's part in making Himself overtly and undeniably visible and known, ...
Have you ever read the Bible? ...of course, many skeptics consider it foolishness also, so there is a certain amount of subjectivity in ascertaining truth.
Have you ever considered that God exists, for objective reasons, on any level?

Thanks MM!

 

[Meow Mix]

But, again, 'changing things up' replies boredom - misguided sexual activity. In other words, how is it that I, personally, would have the utmost indignation to either, use a toy on someone, or allow them to use a toy on me (i can barely say it)? Am I prude, or rather, self-respecting?
Plus, again, a quick-fix is a sign of misuse. If you're lacking affection, meaning that creativity is not the issue here, then it's time to stop having sex and get to know each other better. Again, toys are for kids.

I'm not sure there are facts to this (either way), seems just to be a preference thing. I reject that toys are disrespectful or desperate or these things though, I would submit it just depends on the person perhaps. Á chacun son goûts, I enjoy the occasional toy and so have pretty much most of my partners over the years; even my ex fiancée. I think it has nothing to do with affection, respect, or any of this; and merely has to do with intimacy and exploring each others' bodies or playing sexy games with each other (e.g. handcuffs). It can be endearing in my opinion; but I respect if someone would rather not, that's valid too.

Similar to an employer, who sizes-up the potential employee by assessing the historical longevity of his resume. That is, how long did he stay at his previous employments - was he a fly-by-nighter, or a serious and dedicated worker. This is a general paradigm of society, temporal fixes are for the frivolous and impetuous, but the wise both perceive and strive for things that last.

I wouldn't judge a partner based on their past experiences unless they were being irresponsible (with partner choice, protection, disease awareness, anything like this). I think this, too, just comes down to personal preference. I don't judge more prudish people, though I would personally select a more sexually experienced and open person (or rather it'd be a point in their favor for me).

Hedonism destroys. No one has ever matured or became enlightened, commensurate to the extent of the activity, by indulging in superficial or carnal activity. It's fleeting, and more often than not, never gratifying - chasing the dragon, if you will. Love is better than sex, and it is no easy task, contrary to what you say, to vacillate from one to the other.

Being gay isn't hedonism, it is literally just who we're attracted to (and who we're not attracted to: otherwise we'd be bi). There are chaste gay people, prudish gay people, hyper promiscuous gay people, and gay people that are in between all of these. The being gay part has nothing to do with hedonism though.

However regarding being sexually active, not everything is about being "enlightened." I write poetry for instance to clear my mind and blow off steam, but I'm not going to pretend pouring emotions onto a page is "enlightened." I wouldn't call it hedonistic, either: same with sex. Hedonism enters the picture when someone is wanton, insatiable, intemperate. Sex can be a beautiful thing between lovers, but it can also be a casual thing between people interested in each other. This doesn't cheapen it. I think this just depends on a person's attitude, it's like judging art. Some people find only some kinds of art worthwhile and the rest to be beneath notice or sometimes even contempt. Other people may feel differently, and I think that's valid.

One believes in God, not out of indoctrination, credulity, trepidation, or wishful thinking. We understand the that the universe and life itself is an inexplicable miracle, and that man's nature demands the existence of a spirit within him (for better, or for worse). There is clearly a spiritual warfare going on in this world, the prevalent and perpetual amount of unnecessary hate and evil that exists, clearly denotes that there is an influence that affects man's rationale - who's the fool that decided a man's race determined his worth, or that smoking cigarettes was a good idea?
If you don't believe in God, MM, then at least concede that there is a devil, that again, has turned the creature with the highest intellect on this planet, into a being more inept, incompetent and irrational than a mosquito, monkey or fish. This, is an indisputable, and empirically proven fact.
Thus, the architect of this universe, in order to, first, create it, and then to be able to maintain it in all its providential matters, is no fool? He created you and I, a miracle in and of itself. His ways are not capricious, arbitrary or haphazard, but rather, profound, indiscernible and righteous. We must try to perceive the wisdom behind the precepts and injunctions that He has ordained.
Abstination does promote self-control, and in time, one begins to see the benefit of not being enticed by the flesh or superficial, but by living by the spirit (love, compassion, mercy, support) ..excuse the cliché.

You're excused. (Just teasing!)

I understand the theistic worldview (and even particularly the Christian one). My worldview sees things differently. Since I am unconvinced by the existence of God (though I leave open the possibility), I don't take anything for granted: I'm not sure exactly what characteristics God might have if one exists. I look at the world and I see abject suffering, and so I think of things like the Problem of Evil. I think about morality, and so I think about whether God even has anything at all to do with morality, as with Euthyphro's Dilemma. I think about logic and existence, and I think about whether some of God's purported properties are even self-coherent as given by particular theistic worldviews, as with the aseity-sovereignty paradox. Some sort of God is possible, I confirm: but possible doesn't mean plausible, and possible doesn't necessarily mean properties like "benevolent" and "omnipotent" and "omniscient" at the same time and in the same respect without some sort of good explanation for why I should believe that in the face of the evidence out here in the world.

My worldview describes the world the way that it is self-coherently, after all: if I'm to add a God to it, that needs to make some sort of internal and external sense as well.

As fast-food does not compare to the nutritious and long-term value of healthy food - one is being drawn by taste, not pragmatism - one-night stands are for those who are both callous and oblivious to the benefits of fidelity and longevity. It is an extremely difficult proposition, for most people, to get into such an intimate position with another and not feel an attachment afterwards. If marriage is meant to be sacred, or, at least highly regarded and taken seriously, then how can one be so indifferent and frivolous to the exclusive aspect that consummates a marriage?
For, the common sentiment is, once a person experiences something of the utmost quality, it is almost impossible for them to go back to the inferior ways. So how you find it so easy to vacillate between a meaningful relationship, then to a 'wham-bam-thank you ma'am' tryst, is antithetical to the concept of improvement, enlightenment or connoisseur. ...it forces me to question what your definition of love is, or what you've actually experienced.
Sorry MM, I mean that in a theoretical manner, not to disparage anything that you've said, but just to bring attention to the unconventional aspect of what you're proposing.
Thanks!

Not everything has to be long term and some enormous undertaking. For every Rembrandt painting there is a Rembrandt doodle on a napkin. One does not cheapen the other, they are different things with different purposes. For every deep and soul-baring conversation with a closest friend there is light-hearted, jovial reverie with an acquaintance. One does not cheapen the other.

Saying that casual sex somehow cheapens soul-bonding sex (or whatever you might call deeply romantic sex with a life partner) just because they're both sex is about as nonsensical as saying briefly having a bonding conversation with an acquaintance (that might deepen your friendship, who knows) somehow cheapens a tear-jerking journey of a conversation with your bestie just because they're both conversation. Ce n'est simplement pas le cas.

I know what love is, but it's as impossible for me to prove that to you as it is for anyone else. I can assure you that I don't mistake infatuation or "really liking someone" for love.

Moving on to the next post, thanks for this one! ^.^

 

[Meow Mix]

No, I meant that if it's something that even a degenerate could accomplish - and quite competently at that, then there's probably very little glory or edification in such activities.

As I said in my other response, not everything is done for glory: why should it be? For every good poem I write, I might read a stupid article about a 100 million year old flower stuck in amber and vomit something out like:

Amber struck blossom
Once groping for the sun
Blooming to a somber question
Which should we fear more
Time, or the absence thereof?

What glory does just splurging out a dumb little ditty like this accomplish? Nothing! But it's nice, it feels better to have done than not sometimes: it added an experience. In the case of sex, it adds mutual experience. Not everything that we do in life is some great achievement or even supposed to be one. That doesn't mean engaging in activities diminishes us.

Well, if you're deciding between 2 people for a long-term relationship, and all things being equal except that one has slept around a lot, while the other hasn't, who's the most likely candidate for the position of responsibility and longevity - would you flip a coin? No, you'd take the one that showed the most self-control.

I don't think I'd even consider it much, honestly: I'd be considering how I read the person right now. As mentioned before, I'd be concerned if they were having irresponsible sex all over the place; but otherwise, I simply do not care how many partners they've had.

Was there anything that you regretted about stripping i.e. how you were either treated or perceived at by the men in the place - where you a piece of meat to them?
Did you fall into drugs or other bad habits by remaining in such an environment for extended periods (rhetorical, no need to divulge, thx!)
Also, if you could have, would you have preferred a different means to earn your tuition - was this a concession on any level?

The nasty patrons were impolitely shown the door. Stripping is a service and entertainment industry, so of course a patron's first thought is about my body and not that I'm a person with a name (Erin, by the way: hi): but good patrons, they'll just talk to you (this was obviously before my accident) and it's clear that though there's this understanding that they're here for the body, to be entertained, they know there's a person there too (the ones that don't are generally bad enough to get thrown out).

As for bad habits, definitely not what you might be thinking (and I think that's largely a myth depending on the establishment). As for preferring a different means: I don't think so. Given a life reset I'd do it again, it was a lot of fun. People have different personalities, and I can definitely say that it's not for everybody; but I liked it more than serving tables: a lot more. I came from a small town, I wanted to be wild and let my hair down; and so I did: in a way that ultimately paid for an education. My 20's were a wild ride, I definitely sowed my wild oats. I regret none of it but losing my voice. I'm in my 30's now and it's no longer for me (I still do yoga, barre, and if I had anywhere to put a pole, that's actually great exercise as well so I'd keep up with that too solely to work out), but as I said, I'm mostly happy about the way my 20's went and I remember them fondly (except for the years after the accident, but that's totally unrelated. I was definitely a sad sack for a while).

It's hedonistic, even teenagers like sex showing how susceptible we are in being enticed by it. And yet, how many people have had good experiences with it, or have suffered abject shame due to it [used, cheated on, objectified, abused, raped, sodomized, pregnant, disease ..) Now, I know that your contention is that a few bad apples do not spoil the institution - but, this is prevalent and by no means isolated issues - I would say that the majority of people, in the majority of their experiences, have had more bad sexual encounters than good. ...I'm not sure if this can be proven one way, or the other?

That these bad things exist is a result of bad people existing: it is the culture that needs to change, not having sex. This is a problem with people lacking respect, understanding of consent and dignity, people being selfish or ignorant. What we need is less socioeconomic privation so people can focus on higher bars of the hierarchy of needs, real sex education that teaches young people how to be safe and what consent is and how to respect one another (while, yes, discouraging sex while too young: but abstinence-only does not work, it only makes situations where people that are too young have just as much sex as they would without abstinence-only, except they don't know what they're doing or how to protect themselves! That's a side topic, though.)

Many people find wisdom and enlightenment from reading the Bible. They begin to understand God's will, and perceive how things actually work on earth - why the prohibitions, why the suffering, why the discretion on God's part in making Himself overtly and undeniably visible and known, ...
Have you ever read the Bible? ...of course, many skeptics consider it foolishness also, so there is a certain amount of subjectivity in ascertaining truth.
Have you ever considered that God exists, for objective reasons, on any level?

I have read the Bible. I was a God-fearing Christian (for all the wrong reasons) after Mom died. You probably can't tell in my current avatar (I tend to change these daily though), but one of my first tattoos was my chest piece, which is the Sacred Heart (you can see the flame I guess in this avatar, just a little). I have never covered up or altered this tattoo because it still represents a time of my life and it's a reminder of Mom.

I left Christianity as grief subsided over the years, and began to realize that I wasn't a Christian for the right reasons in the first place: I only had emotional reasons for believing, not intellectual ones. So when I would actually think about things or make observations, I couldn't find answers that made sense within Christianity. This is why I ultimately left the religion. But I have read the Bible and am familiar with Christian worldviews. From there, I began to read analytical philosophy written by theologians; I would go on to written correspondence with Alvin Plantinga with some of my philosophical questions, complaints, and observations: the man is an utter gentleman, and would respond. I've long since debated and discussed religion and philosophy with theists of many stripes, even stepping outside the confines of Christianity at times to widen my perspective.

Cheers DNB ^.^

Edit: By the way, I can't remember if it was my conversation with you where I mentioned this, but it's relevant to some of what we've talked about. When I was deep into Christianity after Mom passed, I tried very hard to make myself straight. It did not work, no matter how truly earnest my attempt. So I simply went chaste as I mentioned some people do. I think that's something to note.

 

[DNB]

I'm not sure there are facts to this (either way), seems just to be a preference thing. I reject that toys are disrespectful or desperate or these things though, I would submit it just depends on the person perhaps. Á chacun son goûts, I enjoy the occasional toy and so have pretty much most of my partners over the years; even my ex fiancée. I think it has nothing to do with affection, respect, or any of this; and merely has to do with intimacy and exploring each others' bodies or playing sexy games with each other (e.g. handcuffs). It can be endearing in my opinion; but I respect if someone would rather not, that's valid too.

Sorry MM, I can't see it. No one will come within 50 feet to touch anything on my body, but their hands.

I wouldn't judge a partner based on their past experiences unless they were being irresponsible (with partner choice, protection, disease awareness, anything like this). I think this, too, just comes down to personal preference. I don't judge more prudish people, though I would personally select a more sexually experienced and open person (or rather it'd be a point in their favor for me).

Funny eh, I'd take the virgin, seriously.

Being gay isn't hedonism, it is literally just who we're attracted to (and who we're not attracted to: otherwise we'd be bi). There are chaste gay people, prudish gay people, hyper promiscuous gay people, and gay people that are in between all of these. The being gay part has nothing to do with hedonism though.

I don't recall what your quote was in regard to, but I assume that I meant focusing or indulging in the flesh was hedonism - toys are just that, it's impersonal now as far as the toy stimulating another goes.

However regarding being sexually active, not everything is about being "enlightened." I write poetry for instance to clear my mind and blow off steam, but I'm not going to pretend pouring emotions onto a page is "enlightened." I wouldn't call it hedonistic, either: same with sex. Hedonism enters the picture when someone is wanton, insatiable, intemperate. Sex can be a beautiful thing between lovers, but it can also be a casual thing between people interested in each other. This doesn't cheapen it. I think this just depends on a person's attitude, it's like judging art. Some people find only some kinds of art worthwhile and the rest to be beneath notice or sometimes even contempt. Other people may feel differently, and I think that's valid.

No, but all experiences are, indirectly or not, meant to teach us something - as much as we fear the traumatization of bad ones - we chose what is pointless or not, beneficial or detrimental, mindless or constructive, etc...

I understand the theistic worldview (and even particularly the Christian one). My worldview sees things differently. Since I am unconvinced by the existence of God (though I leave open the possibility), I don't take anything for granted: I'm not sure exactly what characteristics God might have if one exists. I look at the world and I see abject suffering, and so I think of things like the Problem of Evil. I think about morality, and so I think about whether God even has anything at all to do with morality, as with Euthyphro's Dilemma. I think about logic and existence, and I think about whether some of God's purported properties are even self-coherent as given by particular theistic worldviews, as with the aseity-sovereignty paradox. Some sort of God is possible, I confirm: but possible doesn't mean plausible, and possible doesn't necessarily mean properties like "benevolent" and "omnipotent" and "omniscient" at the same time and in the same respect without some sort of good explanation for why I should believe that in the face of the evidence out here in the world.

How is that you have even have the notion or concern for morality, if there was no ultimate standard - it would be futile to protest stealing or lying if it could be argued how it benefited the culprit, for example. Or why do humans have this awareness (created in His image), when no other creature on earth does - have you ever seen a monkey protest against another animal's actions, appealing for justice?

Not everything has to be long term and some enormous undertaking. For every Rembrandt painting there is a Rembrandt doodle on a napkin. One does not cheapen the other, they are different things with different purposes. For every deep and soul-baring conversation with a closest friend there is light-hearted, jovial reverie with an acquaintance. One does not cheapen the other.

Not entirely analogous, for when one is married or committed, certain things are prohibited - sleeping with others, spending too much time away, not being taking for granted, familial obligations, .... There is a sanctity about a relationship that other activities, like painting, eating or sports, do not share.

Saying that casual sex somehow cheapens soul-bonding sex (or whatever you might call deeply romantic sex with a life partner) just because they're both sex is about as nonsensical as saying briefly having a bonding conversation with an acquaintance (that might deepen your friendship, who knows) somehow cheapens a tear-jerking journey of a conversation with your bestie just because they're both conversation. Ce n'est simplement pas le cas.

It's about tampering or treating with contempt, something that is life changing. It's not the sex that equates them, it's the precarious nature of being frivolous with something that can change one's life - pregnancy, disease, marriage, jealousy, in-laws, alimony, etc..

À bientôt...!

 

[DNB]

As I said in my other response, not everything is done for glory: why should it be? For every good poem I write, I might read a stupid article about a 100 million year old flower stuck in amber and vomit something out like:

Not necessarily for glory, but for improvement and quality - people must take things to the next level. A guitarist cannot stay stagnant, children cannot remain immature, people have to be responsible when before they were not, ... Sex and relationships must also improve.

I don't think I'd even consider it much, honestly: I'd be considering how I read the person right now. As mentioned before, I'd be concerned if they were having irresponsible sex all over the place; but otherwise, I simply do not care how many partners they've had.

I can't see the paradox - being conservative and liberal at the same time?

The nasty patrons were impolitely shown the door. Stripping is a service and entertainment industry, so of course a patron's first thought is about my body and not that I'm a person with a name (Erin, by the way: hi): but good patrons, they'll just talk to you (this was obviously before my accident) and it's clear that though there's this understanding that they're here for the body, to be entertained, they know there's a person there too (the ones that don't are generally bad enough to get thrown out).

As for bad habits, definitely not what you might be thinking (and I think that's largely a myth depending on the establishment). As for preferring a different means: I don't think so. Given a life reset I'd do it again, it was a lot of fun. People have different personalities, and I can definitely say that it's not for everybody; but I liked it more than serving tables: a lot more. I came from a small town, I wanted to be wild and let my hair down; and so I did: in a way that ultimately paid for an education. My 20's were a wild ride, I definitely sowed my wild oats. I regret none of it but losing my voice. I'm in my 30's now and it's no longer for me (I still do yoga, barre, and if I had anywhere to put a pole, that's actually great exercise as well so I'd keep up with that too solely to work out), but as I said, I'm mostly happy about the way my 20's went and I remember them fondly (except for the years after the accident, but that's totally unrelated. I was definitely a sad sack for a while).

Wow, you know that you and I are diametrically opposed to one another, eh, as far as our characters are concerned? ...I regret almost everything that I did in my youth, party wise that is.

That these bad things exist is a result of bad people existing: it is the culture that needs to change, not having sex. This is a problem with people lacking respect, understanding of consent and dignity, people being selfish or ignorant. What we need is less socioeconomic privation so people can focus on higher bars of the hierarchy of needs, real sex education that teaches young people how to be safe and what consent is and how to respect one another (while, yes, discouraging sex while too young: but abstinence-only does not work, it only makes situations where people that are too young have just as much sex as they would without abstinence-only, except they don't know what they're doing or how to protect themselves! That's a side topic, though.)

I think that certain things come with the territory - again, no one gets addicted or commits crimes over carrots or reading a book (worth mentioning). Certain activities elicit nefarious deeds and inclinations. What happens in the red-light district is not just about sex, it brings in a whole slew of other vices.

I have read the Bible. I was a God-fearing Christian (for all the wrong reasons) after Mom died. You probably can't tell in my current avatar (I tend to change these daily though), but one of my first tattoos was my chest piece, which is the Sacred Heart (you can see the flame I guess in this avatar, just a little). I have never covered up or altered this tattoo because it still represents a time of my life and it's a reminder of Mom.
I left Christianity as grief subsided over the years, and began to realize that I wasn't a Christian for the right reasons in the first place: I only had emotional reasons for believing, not intellectual ones. So when I would actually think about things or make observations, I couldn't find answers that made sense within Christianity. This is why I ultimately left the religion. But I have read the Bible and am familiar with Christian worldviews. From there, I began to read analytical philosophy written by theologians; I would go on to written correspondence with Alvin Plantinga with some of my philosophical questions, complaints, and observations: the man is an utter gentleman, and would respond. I've long since debated and discussed religion and philosophy with theists of many stripes, even stepping outside the confines of Christianity at times to widen my perspective.

Well, i find that a shame, and to be honest, possibly a little disingenuous (excuse the candor). I say this because there is so much in life that is just inexplicable and miraculous, that to regard all life and creation as we know it as haphazard and without a distinct purpose, seems naive and a form of denial. I mean in the sense that there must've been at least one point in your life that you couldn't reconcile the existence of the universe and all it's intricacies from an atheistic viewpoint, even momentarily? I would expect both Hitchens and Dawkins to at least have entertained on a plausible level that there could be a God, as fleeting as the notion may have been - but still viable?

Merci encore Erin, ...à propos, je m'appelle Dan.

 

[Meow Mix]

Apologies if I post at you pretty quick: I'm always doing this overnight between thesis stuff and work stuff; so... for about 10 hours on weeknights, I'm occasionally cruising RF.

Sorry MM, I can't see it. No one will come within 50 feet to touch anything on my body, but their hands.

That's fine! I'm not arguing you have to. I'm only arguing that I don't think it's fair to judge people that do too harshly. It's just one perspective.

No, but all experiences are, indirectly or not, meant to teach us something - as much as we fear the traumatization of bad ones - we chose what is pointless or not, beneficial or detrimental, mindless or constructive, etc...

I don't know, some activities are just activities. I mean, at the end of the day, we're just butting heads here over personal preferences. You approach sex the way you like, but I'm just saying there's nothing wrong with the way I approach sex.

How is that you have even have the notion or concern for morality, if there was no ultimate standard - it would be futile to protest stealing or lying if it could be argued how it benefited the culprit, for example. Or why do humans have this awareness (created in His image), when no other creature on earth does - have you ever seen a monkey protest against another animal's actions, appealing for justice?

This is a whole can of worms. Where to begin? With stealing in particular, Kant's categorical imperative has a point: the concept of "property" makes no sense if it's permissible to steal, yet in order to steal, "property" must make sense: when universalized, the concept of theft is incoherent. So there are some rational reasons not to universalize permissiveness of some things. But I don't think anybody's really convinced by that. No, we want to talk about moral realism.

Before I do that, I will point out that in fact, monkeys do have a concept of justice (Chimps' Sense of Justice Found Similar to Humans'). As do dogs (Dogs Understand Fairness, Get Jealous, Study Finds). Rats feel empathy (Rats Show Empathy, Too). Humans are not so qualitatively unique, it seems that we have quantitative advantages with the ability to abstract and reason further with our moral intuitions.

Now, I'll cut to the chase: I'm skeptical of moral realism. Specifically, my position is best described as moral noncognitivism. I don't think that moral statements are propositional (in that I doubt they have a truth value; by which I mean I use Correspondence Theory of truth, so I mean that I'm skeptical that "oughts" correspond to reality in any cognitive way). I could explain my particular flavor of moral noncognitivism, but I could more directly answer your questions with that introduction out of the way.

Even without moral realism, I think that our morality is value-based, meaning that we have these moral intuitions that arise from a hierarchy of values that we possess. I think that doxastic voluntarism is false, meaning that I don't think that we consciously choose our values: we can't sit here, think hard, and will ourselves to value other things than we value or cease valuing what we value. (This doesn't mean values can't change over time or in the face of new information; but we still don't choose whether they change: we just find that they do, or they don't).

So if I value something like property, I'm going to have moral intuitions that become opinions that I shouldn't steal: the "oughts" come in by way of hypothetical imperatives, that is, if-then style statements like "if I value property, then I ought not to steal."

This is how and why I have a concern for the existence of suffering in the world (as this is what I was talking about in the post your post here is responding to): I value things like empathy, altruism, preventing and alleviating suffering. So I experience moral intuitions that I ought to do something about these things, and I find things like gratuitous suffering morally repugnant.

Not entirely analogous, for when one is married or committed, certain things are prohibited - sleeping with others, spending too much time away, not being taking for granted, familial obligations, .... There is a sanctity about a relationship that other activities, like painting, eating or sports, do not share.

Okay, the conversation thing is still analogous though: you have conversations with spouses and you have conversations with friends. Does having a conversation with a friend belittle the act of having a conversation with your spouse? Of course not. So why even compare the two? This is the point: pre-marital sex has nothing to do with marital sex, one does not cheapen the other, so why even compare them?

It's about tampering or treating with contempt, something that is life changing. It's not the sex that equates them, it's the precarious nature of being frivolous with something that can change one's life - pregnancy, disease, marriage, jealousy, in-laws, alimony, etc..

À bientôt...!

This is where responsibility comes in. I am not saying it's invalid to wait until marriage to have sex: more power to people that choose to do so. Just like I have no desire to hop on a motorcycle, but I have no problem with people that want to have that experience. I can find the people that do things like ride without helmets to be ridiculous without monolithing that judgment over to the people that are just living their lives and enjoying their motorcycles. There's a nonzero chance that they might fall and hurt themselves, but this is what it means to be alive: we mitigate risks so that we can actually engage in life. I would hate to sit at home abstaining from doing anything that had nonzero risk. Low and minimized risk are an acceptable way to live life.

<3

 

[Meow Mix]

Not necessarily for glory, but for improvement and quality - people must take things to the next level. A guitarist cannot stay stagnant, children cannot remain immature, people have to be responsible when before they were not, ... Sex and relationships must also improve.

And so they do: I am definitely having better sex in my 30's than I was in my 20's, and that comes with experience. Sorry if TMI, you walked right into that one, friend ^.^ Haha!

But more seriously, I have friends, some of them dear friends, that I initially met by mutual attraction; where it was decided to be friends rather than partners. My life has been added to, improved.

Wow, you know that you and I are diametrically opposed to one another, eh, as far as our characters are concerned? ...I regret almost everything that I did in my youth, party wise that is.

I think this just shows that people can have different preferences, attitudes, points of view, and so on: we can have our reasons for thinking the way that we do and not the way our friend might; but this is why I don't put down other approaches. There are so many variables. Two people can even do the same thing and have vastly different experiences because maybe their reasons were different for instance. This is why bonds with other people are good to have I think: I might perhaps need to think about something in a way I wouldn't normally myself, so I might ask my friends for an approach and try those shoes on for a minute. I might still reject the approach, but I'm richer for having entertained it. I like this human diversity.

I think that certain things come with the territory - again, no one gets addicted or commits crimes over carrots or reading a book (worth mentioning). Certain activities elicit nefarious deeds and inclinations. What happens in the red-light district is not just about sex, it brings in a whole slew of other vices.

I have a sneaking suspicion that if books were illegal (and it's easy to imagine some dystopia where they are), you'd find them in the red-light district/black market along with other illegal things. I don't think that we find illegal things in seedy places is a good argument for how those things are intrinsically wicked.

Well, i find that a shame, and to be honest, possibly a little disingenuous (excuse the candor). I say this because there is so much in life that is just inexplicable and miraculous, that to regard all life and creation as we know it as haphazard and without a distinct purpose, seems naive and a form of denial. I mean in the sense that there must've been at least one point in your life that you couldn't reconcile the existence of the universe and all it's intricacies from an atheistic viewpoint, even momentarily? I would expect both Hitchens and Dawkins to at least have entertained on a plausible level that there could be a God, as fleeting as the notion may have been - but still viable?

Merci encore Erin, ...à propos, je m'appelle Dan.

I don't mind the candor: I consider our chat friendly, and if we don't nip at each other once in a while aren't we just waving unloaded guns in the air? I'll let you know if you say anything genuinely mean that seems unfriendly, and you do the same ^.^

First, I do not care for either Hitchens or Dawkins. The only "New Atheist" I remotely have an inkling of respect for is Daniel Dennett and that's not even for any of his adventures in atheism.

Second, I have left open the possibility that some sort of being we would call God could exist; but I have reasons for the doubts that I have about what properties such a being might have. I find it hard to believe God has the properties leading to the Problem of Evil for instance, or exists as the foundation of morality, or exists both a se and with absolute sovereignty at the same time and in the same respect, and so on. I can defend every aspect of my worldview save necessary axioms (which nobody could defend anyway). So I disagree that this is disingenuous: while we all risk bias when it comes to our own worldviews, I attempt to evaluate it for biases and consistency.

Ravi de te rencontrer, Dan ^.^

 

[Etritonakin]

If Hell is a place of eternal torment, do you think it is good that God allows a place like this to exist?

How do you reconcile finite crimes with infinite punishments?

What is your theory of justice: for instance, Hell seems purely retributive: since someone is ostensibly there forever, there could be no rehabilitative purposes for it.

What about belief? Some worldviews believe that people will go to Hell for mere nonbelief in a savior or religion in general. How do you reconcile that without thinking your god is terrible?

Basically, for those that believe in Hell as a place of eternal torment, can you help me understand why you believe this is real, and why it doesn't cause you to think your god is a monster?

A more accurate understanding is indefinite/dependent.... an ultimatum.

1 Cor 3:13Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 14If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

1 Cor 15:21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

Rev 21:4‘ He will wipe away every tear from their eyes,’ and there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the former things have passed away.” 5And the One seated on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” Then He said, “Write this down, for these words are faithful and true.”