Serious Question To Christians

[Neon Genesis]

For anyone who cares, I will never again be drawn into participating with hyjacking another's thread to be about me and my beliefs that are not directly related to the OPs subject. If those who are obsessed with me and my beliefs bring up my beliefs about domestic order or homosexuality or whatever in an attempt to make every topic that I choose to participate in about me, I will ignore their manuevers and either stay on topic or walk away.

 

I know how old this has become for me so I can only imagine how old it is for those who have a life outside of "Kratosology".

 

John

Translation, "I don't want to take responsibility for my actions and unprovable, judgmental claims and how they affect others, so I'm going to ignore anything that's inconvenient for me and attack other people with hypocritical ad hominems because I don't want to admit that I don't have any proof in demonstrable reality to back up any of my claims whatsoever, but it's ok because God loves you anyway."

[Legion]

For anyone who cares, I will never again be drawn into participating with hyjacking another's thread to be about me and my beliefs that are not directly related to the OPs subject. If those who are obsessed with me and my beliefs bring up my beliefs about domestic order or homosexuality or whatever in an attempt to make every topic that I choose to participate in about me, I will ignore their manuevers and either stay on topic or walk away.

 

I know how old this has become for me so I can only imagine how old it is for those who have a life outside of "Kratosology".

 

John

I thought that was amusing John. I haven't interacted with you yet. But you do seem to have a reputation for being a sexist homophobe.

 

As an aside, I see that the Coliseum here is beginning to look like the Lion's Den.

[The-Captain]

For anyone who cares, I will never again be drawn into participating with hyjacking another's thread to be about me and my beliefs that are not directly related to the OPs subject.

 

I know how old this has become for me so I can only imagine how old it is for those who have a life outside of "Kratosology".

 

Works for me...

[DarthOkkata]

For anyone who cares, I will never again be drawn into participating with hyjacking another's thread to be about me and my beliefs that are not directly related to the OPs subject. If those who are obsessed with me and my beliefs bring up my beliefs about domestic order or homosexuality or whatever in an attempt to make every topic that I choose to participate in about me, I will ignore their manuevers and either stay on topic or walk away.

 

I know how old this has become for me so I can only imagine how old it is for those who have a life outside of "Kratosology".

 

John

 

Well, the topic is about suffering, and reading your posts is causing me a great deal of it.

 

It makes my head hurt worse than the time I got into an argument with the Dairy counter of the neighborhood grocery store about the non existence of 'Soy Milk' just thinking about some of the ideas you're spouting between pointless cute phrases about 'love' and 'compassion'.

 

As if you can discern the difference between agreement and miserable annoyance. If there was a way for us to circle our hands and roll our eyes in a gesture of 'hurry up and spit it out, so I can throw up my hands and tear at my own hair' most of us probably would be.

 

You don't seem to understand that suffering extends beyond having sharp spikes nailed into your arms and legs holding you up on a wooden plank, while being whipped and stabbed.

 

Why, there are all sorts of suffering. Psychological, Physical, Emotional, Sexual [not always a bad thing I've heard], Sports Related. Do you realize I spent most of my life as a fan of a team who hadn't won a World Championship in living memory? Do you have any idea what that feels like? Being tormented, laughed at, pushed around at sports bars, persecuted, and unloved. The only time I wasn't being treated this way, was when I still thought a baseball might taste good whenever I got my hands on one.

 

I fail to understand how holding dominion over anyone doesn't create a fair amount of suffering at some point. Maybe not all the time, perhaps a box of chocolates on occasion, or very rarely, a night without beer.

 

Using an imaginary storybook, compiled by barbaric men who wanted an excuse to tell the Mrs 'she'd better have dinner finished by the time they got home or else!', does not excuse it.

 

At any rate, I'm male, and even I'm offended by the sexist dogma of suffering, ruling over a household with an iron fist, and wife spanking, you're promoting here.

 

Seriously man, you've got internet access, just rent some porn. Go for the kinky stuff with whips and leather, it might curb this unreasonable level of obsessive control you seek. Maybe give the Mrs the paddle once and a while. You might enjoy it, perhaps a bit too much.

 

This is America, land of the free and all that. Sure, it's been compromised a bit, but I'm still sure we're not a 'christian' nation. You've not really got the majority if you count everyone else. You're just, the biggest single group. Well, some of us might be in Canada. Still, I've not seen anyone here typing with a French accent!

 

You've got no right to dominate here pal! Well, not unless she really wants to let you, but even then, she can stop putting up with it at any time she feels like it. If you try and stop her and get caught, our justice system will thoroughly slap you on the wrist, and give you such a pinch.

 

You see, dictating someone else's personal choices is communism's job, and we all know how much that sucks. They take their job very seriously, and don't put up with religion stepping on their toes.

 

You seem more interested in having total control over your personal dominion than you are in caring about another human being.

 

Other people don't like that, it causes...you guessed it, suffering.

 

You just don't get that subjugation is not really welcome in free society. It's kind of the point of having it in the first place. You know, why we added the word 'free'.

 

It doesn't mean you're free to do as you please to anyone you've managed to con, coerce, or bully into a contract.

 

It also means, telling someone you've not, personally, entered a monogamy contract with, who they can fuck, is none of your business. Even then, you can only ask and hope they like you enough to comply.

 

Now that I've finished jokingly jabbing at your, thus far, terrible personality, I feel I should move on to the meat of the matter.

 

You seem to have a very dulled understanding of what the word 'suffering' can entail. Even someone who is annoyed is suffering, though, admittedly, not as much as someone who just had his house, family, and a few random body parts sucked up into a giant vortex of wind.

 

God must have forgotten his Midol this month, but Jeb still feels blessed with what he's still got, so everything is gravy.

 

God doesn't explain anything about suffering, instead he's become something that would require an insurmountable amount of explaining.

 

If he is real, and comes back to see us, we should promptly place him under arrest, put him on trial, and execute him as many times as it takes. Even if it means doing it every three days forever.

 

What he's got planned for some of us is even worse, we should take our opportunity to put a stop to his terrorism of humanity. Make him put up with this 'suffering' bullshit he's pushed on us since the beginning of humanity.

[Kratos]

Darthokkata,

 

You know nothing about me or my marriage so all you showed yourself to be is another bigot who feels that it is okay to assume a whole personal history and psychological make-up of another human being based upon a very few sentences about their religious beliefs.

 

Please read my last post and consider yourself ignored.

 

John

[DarthOkkata]

Darthokkata,

 

You know nothing about me or my marriage so all you showed yourself to be is another bigot who feels that it is okay to assume a whole personal history and psychological make-up of another human being based upon a very few sentences about their religious beliefs.

 

Please read my last post and consider yourself ignored.

 

John

 

You obviously took my post a bit more seriously than you should have, but I do have a few valid points, which can be backed up by previous post you've made. Others have already collected bullet points of this in previous posts in this thread, so why bother again?

 

Sorry, I just spent two hours watching Lewis Black, and it seems to have rubbed off a little.

 

You're still facilitating and validating the worst extremes of subjugation and domination, even if you're not practicing as such yourself. The views you've posted about 'ranking position' in a relationship are degrading, barbaric, offensive, and downright unamerican.

 

You sure like to toss the word 'bigot' around an awful lot for someone with a male superiority complex, and an interest in what other consenting emotionally attached adults should be allowed to do in private. As if it was any of your business in the first place.

 

We wouldn't put up with it if you were talking about someone's ethnicity the way you've talked about how women and gays should behave and be treated. It would make you a racist asshat.

 

It's not really any different just because you talk about Jesus and tout God's law and command in between bigoted fits of evil. White supremacist still love to do that, even today. The opponents of the Women's movement and supporters of Slavery were also fond of it. So, you're a sexist homophobic asshat. I hate to tell you, but it's not really any better than being a racist asshat.

 

To put it simply, you'd fit in here in the South pretty well. Especially back in the sixties.

 

Guess you missed your prime, and all that 'civil rights', 'equality of sexes' and 'equal opportunity' stuff either got in the way and cramped your style, or went over your head. You seem to have missed the point.

 

Maybe you do have a happy quiet home life, but you're causing suffering and holding the rest of society back just by spreading this mindless crap about.

[Deva]

For anyone who cares, I will never again be drawn into participating with hyjacking another's thread to be about me and my beliefs that are not directly related to the OPs subject. If those who are obsessed with me and my beliefs bring up my beliefs about domestic order or homosexuality or whatever in an attempt to make every topic that I choose to participate in about me, I will ignore their manuevers and either stay on topic or walk away.

 

I know how old this has become for me so I can only imagine how old it is for those who have a life outside of "Kratosology".

 

John

 

This thread was not "hyjacked." Again, I said nothing until your post#19, wherein you started talking about "God's plan." Part of God's plan, for you, involves the submission of women to men and homosexuals being "sinners". You weren't intending to mention that though, were you? You must have thought we would just silently let that go by, even though we have heard previously from you, ad nauseum, about "God's plan." These ideas directly contribute to enormous suffering in this world, therefore it is certainly related to the OP. The topic was God, compassion and suffering.

 

As for "Kratosology" - how egotistical of you. Yes, I am quite sure there is no one or nothing here that is more interesting to you than yourself.

[Antlerman]

I have learned from this never to answer an "innocent question" about what you believe knowing that many will use what you answer against you from then on. I mistakenly thought that the members of this forum were better than that and this was my mistake.

 

The truth is that this is called a straw man argument and is a weak minded trick when you cannot handle the subject being discussed. Rather than discuss rationally what is being discussed, you build a straw man to attack based on something other than what is being discussed and then you attack the straw man's beliefs instead of the one's being discussed.

Technically John, what you're trying to say makes it more of a Red Herring argument. A Straw Man argument is where you essential put words into your opponents mouth and offer a case against that in order to easily defeat them. Though the Straw Man is a type of a Red Herring argument, it's where you create something your opponent does not believe. It would be like me saying "John believes that all Buddhists are liars and cheats. Since John believes this, how can anyone trust anything he says?" That's a Straw Man. In the Red Herring, it's where someone drags out some other issue of another day, and makes that the issue and not the one at hand. It's "throwing off the scent". The way I always try to keep things on track is to ask, "Whether true or not, what does that have to do with the main question of the discussion?"

 

Speaking as a Moderator:

 

In either case, it doesn't have to do with the topic. Since this is being made an issue of focus itself again and again in unrelated topics, might I propose someone starting a separate topic, or request a one on one debate on the subject of "Christians' Views of Women in Marriage" where this can be discussed as it's own thing, as opposed to finding it's way into unrelated topics? An Arena debate could be set up through Skip 'N Church for those interested, or I can set up a moderated one here in the Colosseum with limited participants.

 

In the Lion's Den it doesn't matter if we go down entirely separate roads of discussion. In here, this is solely in the interest of keeping a 'hot button' topic from being brought in and distracting from discussion of the original topic.

[Deva]

Speaking as a Moderator:

 

In either case, it doesn't have to do with the topic. Since this is being made an issue of focus itself again and again in unrelated topics, might I propose someone starting a separate topic, or request a one on one debate on the subject of "Christians' Views of Women in Marriage" where this can be discussed as it's own thing, as opposed to finding it's way into unrelated topics? An Arena debate could be set up through Skip 'N Church for those interested, or I can set up a moderated one here in the Colosseum with limited participants.

 

In the Lion's Den it doesn't matter if we go down entirely separate roads of discussion. In here, this is solely in the interest of keeping a 'hot button' topic from being brought in and distracting from discussion of the original topic.

 

 

Apologies to MesaGMan for derailing his topic. I am stepping out of this discussion.

[MesaGman]

wow didn't expect THIS. wow! anyways, backtracking, you mention that God uses these fatal ills to make us stronger. And use a athletic dad as an example. I remember watching a movie about an Austrialian dad, who had a drinking problem and pushed his sons to be the best swimmers they could be. He terrorised them, but like you said, they perservered and won! and competed well. But he maintains that it's "MY DREAM".

 

so all these sufferances that we suffer, are to fulfill God's Dream?

 

anyways, as with the movie, the Dad is a drunkard, a psychopath, and a terrible dad, who does push his children, but destroys their childhood. I would rather, my children be happy and know they were safe, and not terrorize them even if it were for their own good.

 

would YOU Kratos, strike your own child, for not preforming well? you like most parents would dream of BIG things for their kids, Great Marks, a great spouse, a killer instinct in the professional world. But what if they fail to overcome their Mortal limitations? such as health problems? would you hit your kid, or burn them to be tortured for not comparing to others?

[The-Captain]

would YOU Kratos, strike your own child, for not preforming well? you like most parents would dream of BIG things for their kids, Great Marks, a great spouse, a killer instinct in the professional world. But what if they fail to overcome their Mortal limitations? such as health problems? would you hit your kid, or burn them to be tortured for not comparing to others?

 

Keep in mind, Kratos doesn't believe in hell. Makes debating Xian theology a real bugger as your never really sure which parts he holds to, but I digress.

 

Kratos since you believe suffering exists to conform us to the image of god, I'm curious, do you think that it is something undesirable, or should be prevented if possible?

[Grandpa Harley]

I'd disagree that Kratos' views of women and gays does not colour this debate. If he thought 'all niggers should be strung up' then we'd not be having the meta discussion on his worth. Basically, he takes a view that is, for the most part abhorrent in the fact it creates a 'second' class citizen, deemed incapable (women) or unnatural (gay) in the view of a 'perfect' God, based on an eisegesis that would get him thrown out of 50% of Chrisitan sites if he espoused them... However, his view is one that has caused, 'in nomine Dei', untold suffering... and his view is of the same spectrum that avoided the death penalty ever being on the table for the killers of Matthew Shepard, since he was 'just a gay' or the fact that police often do nothing when called to 'domestics' in middle class white areas, since it's just someone 'disciplining' his wife. The idea that one has a ranking in the home 'by God's ordnance', or that some people, by some quirk of birth, are 'abhorrent' to their 'creator', is the crack in the door to hell, not heaven... and as such, Kratos is an enabler... the poster boy for the middle class, white, protestant, 'Christian', liberal bigot - 'Don git me wrawng, some o' my best friends are wimmins and faggs, but I'd not want one running the country... and I tell mah waife she thinks that too, and she smiles...You'd think she understands every word' There are none so blind as they hand their horror onto another generation... and John is the worst horror of all, since he believes he's a 'good man', and others may well believe that, rather than the whited sephulcre view he has given us in his interminable peddling of his venomous, evil, vile, maggot ridden, putrid creed of hated, control, and bigotry....

 

As a personal comment, I am tired of his perpetual defence of a view that is indefensible beyond his claim that Jesus tells him things, and that it has nothing to do with the subject at hand, when really, it's at the cornerstone of his entire world view. As a 'functional myth' proponent, he is a useful 'terrible warning' but really has little of worth to say. for the moderator in question to try and place that portion of Kratos' world view out of bounds, is, to me, unconscionable interference with the flow of the discussion, since Kratos world view is God led suffering in spades... When Kratos arrives, then the world view is on the table, if it is related. Kratos is an architect of suffering... his views are core to the discussion, even without a hell

[Kratos]

would YOU Kratos, strike your own child, for not preforming well? you like most parents would dream of BIG things for their kids, Great Marks, a great spouse, a killer instinct in the professional world. But what if they fail to overcome their Mortal limitations? such as health problems? would you hit your kid, or burn them to be tortured for not comparing to others?

 

Keep in mind, Kratos doesn't believe in hell. Makes debating Xian theology a real bugger as your never really sure which parts he holds to, but I digress.

 

Kratos since you believe suffering exists to conform us to the image of god, I'm curious, do you think that it is something undesirable, or should be prevented if possible?

 

I do think it should be prevented if possible and this is really the whole point. In my weight lifting analogy, you push against resistence to gain strength and to be able to remove more and more obstacles in life through this added strength. Being overcome by the weight is not the aim, it is overcoming the weight and gaining more strength in the process.

 

God's goal for all of us as I understand it as it is revealed at the end of each message to the seven churches in Rev. 2 and 3 is that we become overcomers. There is sickness in the world so that we can learn to overcome sickness. There is poverty in the world so we can learn to overcome poverty. There is hatred in the world so we can learn to overcome hatred. There are wars so we can overcome man's desire for war and learn war no more.

 

As I see it, man was placed in a world full of darkness in hopes that we would overcome the darkness with the light. Jesus came preaching the Kingdom of God where righteousness dwells. Romans says that the Kingdom of God is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. He not only preached this overcoming Kingdom to those still in darkness, but He demonstrated the superiority of His Kingdom by healing the sick, raising the dead, casting out devils, and healing the broken hearted.

 

Finally, He taught us to pray that His Kingdom would come as His will is done on earth as it is in Heaven. The mess that we see all around us is the result of man choosing his own way over God's way. But, as we yeild to His way over ours, His Kingdom overcomes the kingdoms of this world and we start to live on earth more like they do in Heaven.

 

If a man had two sons who wanted to take over his business that he had built from the bottom up, who would be more qualified, the one who had been given everything and never had to work to overcome anything or the one who had to struggle against the odds and become an overcomer? It is about making us in character and constitution able to rule over the works of His hands and this takes struggle and resistence.

 

John

[Grandpa Harley]

Interesting use of disparate writing written by wildly different people at different times to prop up what is actually a Darwinian wolrd view with the nice, safe, idea that there is a plan, other than our final decline and extinction... The Evolutionary 'special' view of mankind..

 

To pick out the the texts -

 

Rev - Written AD90-95 by someone trying make themselves feel special while hiding from Domitian's 'persecution'

 

Romans - Primero-Paul - AD50-60 - 30 years being kind on the dates before Rev, and there being no guarantee that either author knew the other's works or words...

 

To relate the two is the above author's opinion, with no grounding in history or even dogma at the time of thei respective work's authorship...

 

G.Matt/Mark - Lord's prayer Interpolated segment of writing that comes from Egyptian Amun texts, not Judaic. Primero Paul is unaware of the Matt/Mark tradition since he NEVER references any of them. To cite Matt/Mark in support of Rev or Primer0-Paul is like citing Bronowski as a source of inspiration for Jung. G. Matt AD80-100 G. Mark AD65-80

 

finally, a homespun parable that is long on verbage and offers an apples and oranges view of 'suffering' comparing life to a business... Typical clergy style homily that really lacks any depth or reflection... it relies on sounding facile to pretend it is profound, when actually it's just facile... a poor comparison that a bright child could come up with...

 

Effectively, it's what's called a 'string of pearls' exegesis, taking parts of unrelated texts, out of context, and adding them together to make a 'coherent'(?) philosophy, despite the fact the wider parts of the texts used may contradict each other wildly... Over all, nothing overly convincing in the view, and indicative of virtually no knowledge (or interest) of the historical context of the works cited... and then stringing them onto the author's own philosophical 'thread' to make it look like an artefact, when it is not.

 

 

One could do as well citing Lord of the Rings... or maybe Star Wars...

 

Personal comment - I find this biblical nonsense a waste of time, since it proves nothing, and the author's personal philosophy flawed and venal. Again the author shows the lie he's trying to understand ex-Cs and more that he is trying to sell his ideas... tiresome.

[DarthOkkata]

I do think it should be prevented if possible and this is really the whole point. In my weight lifting analogy, you push against resistence to gain strength and to be able to remove more and more obstacles in life through this added strength. Being overcome by the weight is not the aim, it is overcoming the weight and gaining more strength in the process.

 

God's goal for all of us as I understand it as it is revealed at the end of each message to the seven churches in Rev. 2 and 3 is that we become overcomers. There is sickness in the world so that we can learn to overcome sickness. There is poverty in the world so we can learn to overcome poverty. There is hatred in the world so we can learn to overcome hatred. There are wars so we can overcome man's desire for war and learn war no more.

 

As I see it, man was placed in a world full of darkness in hopes that we would overcome the darkness with the light. Jesus came preaching the Kingdom of God where righteousness dwells. Romans says that the Kingdom of God is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. He not only preached this overcoming Kingdom to those still in darkness, but He demonstrated the superiority of His Kingdom by healing the sick, raising the dead, casting out devils, and healing the broken hearted.

 

Finally, He taught us to pray that His Kingdom would come as His will is done on earth as it is in Heaven. The mess that we see all around us is the result of man choosing his own way over God's way. But, as we yeild to His way over ours, His Kingdom overcomes the kingdoms of this world and we start to live on earth more like they do in Heaven.

 

If a man had two sons who wanted to take over his business that he had built from the bottom up, who would be more qualified, the one who had been given everything and never had to work to overcome anything or the one who had to struggle against the odds and become an overcomer? It is about making us in character and constitution able to rule over the works of His hands and this takes struggle and resistence.

 

John

 

I do think it should be prevented if possible and this is really the whole point. In my weight lifting analogy, you push against [resistance] <{sp} to gain strength and to be able to remove more and more obstacles in life through this added strength. Being overcome by the weight is not the aim, it is overcoming the weight and gaining more strength in the process.

 

[The] goal for all of us as I understand it is that we overcome. <{sp + gr} There is sickness in the world so that we can learn to overcome sickness. There is poverty in the world so we can learn to overcome poverty. There is hatred in the world so we can learn to overcome hatred. There are wars so we can overcome man's desire for war and learn war no more.

 

As I see it, man was placed in a world full of darkness in hopes that we would overcome the darkness with the light. [i could] preach [about] where righteousness dwells. [i can] say that the [best way to live] is righteousness, peace, and joy. [i could] not only preach this overcoming to those still in darkness, but [i could] demonstrate the superiority of [kindness] by healing the sick, and healing the broken hearted.

 

Finally, [i could teach] us to [hope] that [this world] would come as [our] will is done on earth. The mess that we see all around us is the result of man choosing his own [selfish] way over [kindness]. But, as we yeild to [kindness] over [selfhishness], [then kindness] overcomes the [selfhishness] of this world and we start to live on earth [in peace].

 

If a man had two sons who wanted to take over his business that he had built from the bottom up, who would be more qualified, the one who had been given everything and never had to work to overcome anything or the one who had to struggle against the odds and become an overcomer? It is about making us in character and constitution able to rule over the works of [our] hands and this takes struggle and [resistance] <{sp}.

 

Well, what do you know? Take out Jesus, and it still makes sense. Probably the best post you've made all thread, just bit of editing to remove unnecessary supernatural elements and you've got a very nice sounding universal statement.

[Grandpa Harley]

I'm still not happy with the whole 'reason' thing... There isn't sickness in the world to 'overcome' it, it's there due to the fact we're competing with bacteria et al... Poverty is only a concept, and isn't there to be 'overcome', but exists because people want more than they have... it's not a state animals have (yet they have sickness...) There is 'hatred' in the world simply because someone is always going to to fear someone else or simply that people are assholes. Again, its an abstract state, not a demon that stalks the world. There isn't a great cosmic reason, just that, in the end, every species is competing with every other not to die out.

 

In the end the motivation is fear of death and pain - Nothing wants to starve to death without shelter (poverty in a non conceptual form), and, in an animal sense, hate=fear. And disease is simply being at the wrong end of a different phylum's sex life...

 

Basicaly, I don't see the hand of a loving god here, just the blind watchmaker of evolution... wven the term 'watchmaker' is a misnomer, since the process doesn't 'care' what the end product is or even that there is an 'end' product... just a sequence of products moulded by wind, weather, food availability and resistance to predation.

 

you strip the 'loving god' from the concept and you just get a pretty cold view of nature... I can see why people flee into a fantasy where they're special, rather than embrace their place in nature and try to benefit their species. The whole God concept just looks silly when you start applying 'given resistance' ideas... it's just Eugenics by a different name... There again, the God of the bible was always a Fascist...

[Antlerman]

As a personal comment, I am tired of his perpetual defence of a view that is indefensible beyond his claim that Jesus tells him things, and that it has nothing to do with the subject at hand, when really, it's at the cornerstone of his entire world view. As a 'functional myth' proponent, he is a useful 'terrible warning' but really has little of worth to say. for the moderator in question to try and place that portion of Kratos' world view out of bounds, is, to me, unconscionable interference with the flow of the discussion, since Kratos world view is God led suffering in spades... When Kratos arrives, then the world view is on the table, if it is related. Kratos is an architect of suffering... his views are core to the discussion, even without a hell

 

Your points about those views influencing all his others is well understood and is being taken into account. My decision is that to discuss at length that topic inside all other topics overwhelms those topics at hand, and therefore at this point with its history in so many threads now, I'm stating it needs to become it's own topic for discussion.

 

Since you have a particular focus on this aspect of his belief system, I will be happy to moderate a one on one with you and Kratos should he agree to it. Or anyone else who wishes to take that topic on with him may. You're free to disagree with my reasoning, but for now, I'm saying we need to stay on topic and this "hot button" issue needs to stop being poked at and sidetracking topics in the Coliseum.

[Grandpa Harley]

So effectively, you want someone to dirty their hands on the cur rather than kick him... I see... I'd sooner remove my own eyes with a cold teaspoon than plough any further into his mind... however, you enjoy the big red button of Doom... ;D

[Antlerman]

So effectively, you want someone to dirty their hands on the cur rather than kick him... I see... I'd sooner remove my own eyes with a cold teaspoon than plough any further into his mind... however, you enjoy the big red button of Doom... ;D ™

I'm wanting topics in the Coliseum to stop being derailed by poking at this in the spirit of this:

This section is for more serious debate. Although this section is not as formal as "The Arena," all posts should remain "on topic" at all times.

 

If a topic degenerates and wanders away from the topic, as frequently happens when people disagree, the entire topic may be moved to "The Lion's Den," closed, or deleted altogether. Offending posters may even receive warnings.

 

The point of this section is for those members who would like to see and participate in informal, yet serious, debate.

 

If a discussion becomes more serious and the debaters would prefer to have a more formal discussion, a moderator can be solicited to move the discussion to the Arena.

The alternative is to ban users whose views we find offensive. I'm not sure anyone cares to make that list and go that road... I sure don't. I don't enjoy doing this... I'm sure you can understand the reasons.

[Grandpa Harley]

The idea of banning someone for 'repugnant' views is not the question. The concept of being accountable for repugnant views, when it is applicable to thread, is. So, I appreciate why, and I disagree. I maintain the view is a prima facie case of 'suffering caused by "God"' and thus is part of this discussion... however, I'm clearly out gunned so I'll simply join Deva on the sidelines as someone else disenfranchised by the reading of the 'rules...

[R. S. Martin]

I hope this meets the needs of the moment. I set up a thread in the Theology section to discuss Biblical Views of Women and Gays. I copied a few quotes from this thread to carry the convo over there. Recently a Christian's thread (Mercury Symbol) was moved there. So I know Christians have posted there and I figured it should be fair to Kratos.

 

I'm also thinking putting it in the context of biblical view or theology, rather than fighting it out in person-to-person combat might help depersonalize it. Just my idea. Don't know if I'm right.

[Antlerman]

I hope this meets the needs of the moment. I set up a thread in the Theology section to discuss Biblical Views of Women and Gays. I copied a few quotes from this thread to carry the convo over there. Recently a Christian's thread (Mercury Symbol) was moved there. So I know Christians have posted there and I figured it should be fair to Kratos.

 

I'm also thinking putting it in the context of biblical view or theology, rather than fighting it out in person-to-person combat might help depersonalize it. Just my idea. Don't know if I'm right.

This is helpful information, but if we want to have it be a debate it should be here in the Coliseum, which I would be happy to move it here for you. Otherwise as a separate discussion amongst the ExChristians it's fine where it is.

 

I actually have decided today that I am going to challenge Kratos for a debate in the Arena if he should wish to accept. The topic will be along the lines of "The Evolution of Morality and Doctrine" I need to check my schedule but hope to do this in short order. It's more an exploration of fact finding for both sides and a look at how ideas of Biblical truth, and notions of morality are either to be taken as authoritative or evolving, and hence relative to personal choice in regards to family structures, or in how we perceive and judge truth in regards to other human beings. Of course in that I'll be debating as a member, and Kevin would moderate. As is usual for me, there won't be any tongue lashing being given out. Just a concerted effort at dialog.

[DarthOkkata]

In the interest of continuing the topic at hand.

 

What about natural disaster?

 

There's a great deal of suffering involved there as well.

 

Drought, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, floods, famine, and epidemics of disease.

 

How exactly are we made better through suffering through these sorts of problems? Why does god allow these sorts of things, all of which kill anyone who happens to be stuck in the effected area. Disaster doesn't seem to care how much you love Jesus.

 

God doesn't exactly drop leaflets warning us of them, why he's doing it, or even really supply a valid explanation for any of it.

 

So, what's the excuse then?

 

Is he mad at us? If so, why not tell us what he's mad about, otherwise what are we supposed to learn from this needless suffering?

[Kratos]

I do not believe that God micromanages every life or every situation directly. I believe that He allowed us to be lowered into this life of vanity so we can overcome through it. Jesus was asked this question about a man born blind whether the man sinned of his parents and Jesus responded "Neither". In the first part of Luke 13 He also addressed who is the sinner when a disaster takes them. Again, He says that these things did not happen because anyone was a sinner.

 

Unfortunately, Christian religion likes to hold divine retribution over the heads of the people for the sake of job security as the ones who will help us all not be found deserving of such natural disasters. Hogwash.

 

2Pe 1:2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,

2Pe 1:3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

2Pe 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

 

We live in a fallen world for a season so we can become overcomers in it. We are given promises in the Word by which we can escape the bad things that are in the world. God does not send disease to us. Disease is in this fallen world. Yet, He provides healing through faith. He does not send natural disasters, but natural disasters are in the world. Yet, He promises protection through them if we believe.

 

The whole idea that God is sitting up in Heaven saying "I think I will give little Bobby cancer today or I think I will let little Suzie drown in a flood" is not God as I see Him. We have been lowered from the Heavenly life to this ugly world so we can bring Heaven down here through faith. I see mankind much more corporate and not so individual as some when it comes to God. It is an "us" thing and not a "me" thing as I see it.

 

John

[Alice]

Hi there,

 

 

The whole idea that God is sitting up in Heaven saying "I think I will give little Bobby cancer today or I think I will let little Suzie drown in a flood" is not God as I see Him.

 

Given you believe that God has the power to lower us into this life of vanity so that we can overcome, it would seem that in your thinking he uses his standby status not to manage the situations when little Suzie drowns and when little Bobby's cells metastasize. Tell me how that is any less unloving?

 

We live in a fallen world for a season so we can become overcomers in it. We are given promises in the Word by which we can escape the bad things that are in the world. God does not send disease to us. Disease is in this fallen world. Yet, He provides healing through faith. He does not send natural disasters, but natural disasters are in the world. Yet, He promises protection through them if we believe.

 

This really doesn't fit with the rest of your ideology - he lowers us into the world so we can get strong and overcome but some will be protected because of belief ... he exposes us to disease so that we can overcome but to some who have faith he will send healing?

 

Small words make a lot of difference. I can see the sense in the sentence 'as we live in a world where there is disease, we can (potentially) become overcomers of disease.'

 

I think you've fallen 'as' over 'so' down a steep slope here