Over and over and over and over and over...

[L.B.]

Got into what I thought was going to be an interesting chat with a woman online this morning.

 

She got me talking about magick and alchemy and the forces of nature and the impersonal characteristics of the universe.

 

Next thing you know, she breaks out the "universe was made by the god of the bible, we're all doomed, have to be saved/reborn" bullshit.

 

I asked her, "Why did your god allow people to be born 'dead in sin' after 'Adam and Eve' disobeyed? Why not just kill them for their disobedience, or reserve their punishment for them alone? Why not fix the problem right then, instead of waiting thousands of years to set up a solution that is nothing more than begging the doctor for the antidote to the disease he injected you with"?

 

I told her, "This god who made you, subject to his damnation, then makes you beg for his pardon, is an abuser."

I got nothing but the "we have to choose to be saved", "we have to choose to ask for forgiveness" nonsense, over and over.

 

That's all I ever hear. Those are the only answers that stupid religion ever offers.

[mwc]

18 minutes ago, L.B. said:

Got into what I thought was going to be an interesting chat with a woman online this morning.

 

She got me talking about magick and alchemy and the forces of nature and the impersonal characteristics of the universe.

 

Next thing you know, she breaks out the "universe was made by the god of the bible, we're all doomed, have to be saved/reborn" bullshit.

 

I asked her, "Why did your god allow people to be born 'dead in sin' after 'Adam and Eve' disobeyed? Why not just kill them for their disobedience, or reserve their punishment for them alone? Why not fix the problem right then, instead of waiting thousands of years to set up a solution that is nothing more than begging the doctor for the antidote to the disease he injected you with"?

 

I told her, "This god who made you, subject to his damnation, then makes you beg for his pardon, is an abuser."

I got nothing but the "we have to choose to be saved", "we have to choose to ask for forgiveness" nonsense, over and over.

 

That's all I ever hear. Those are the only answers that stupid religion ever offers.

     Cool.  I choose to be saved.  Full stop.  Nothing more.  No other conditions.  No change of heart or mind.  No belief in anything.  Just, sure, I choose to be saved.  I don't know exactly from what or when or anything but when the time comes for a-savin', like when the ship is going down and it's time to get on the life-raft, well just save me a seat and give me a call.  This is me calling dibs and letting everyone know I'm not going down with the ship.

 

     But I imagine (read: I know) that's not good enough.  I imagine (read: I know) there's lots of terms and conditions to this choosing to be saved.  Apparently just saying "To whom it may concern, if anyone or thing, when the time comes save me...whatever that means. I'm going to suppose you, whatever you might be, again, if anything, will have a better handle on this than I." just doesn't work.

 

          mwc

 

[Geezer]

Indoctrinated minds function as they have been programmed to think. Believers have been trained to live in their own pretend reality. 

[L.B.]

39 minutes ago, Geezer said:

Indoctrinated minds function as they have been programmed to think. Believers have been trained to live in their own pretend reality. 

 

 

It's mind-boggling, honestly. I don't know why any number of other mythologies and/or philosophies on life, etc, wouldn't be more compelling - after all, the vast majority of them either make MORE sense than the evangelical bible story, or they make as much or less sense, but at least nobody treats them as absolutely real and the will of some actual being.

[Guest end3]

Jesus is a subscription to love.  Choosing Christ and Love is somehow bad?

[Astreja]

25 minutes ago, end3 said:

Jesus is a subscription to love.  Choosing Christ and Love is somehow bad?

 

Choosing to act with compassion and love is fine.

 

Being forced to accept a proxy human sacrifice under threat of eternal torture is implacably evil and abusive.  Utterly despicable, and I reject that mindset unconditionally.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

6 hours ago, mwc said:

     Cool.  I choose to be saved.  Full stop.  Nothing more.  No other conditions.  No change of heart or mind.  No belief in anything.  Just, sure, I choose to be saved.  I don't know exactly from what or when or anything but when the time comes for a-savin', like when the ship is going down and it's time to get on the life-raft, well just save me a seat and give me a call.  This is me calling dibs and letting everyone know I'm not going down with the ship.

 

     But I imagine (read: I know) that's not good enough.  I imagine (read: I know) there's lots of terms and conditions to this choosing to be saved.  Apparently just saying "To whom it may concern, if anyone or thing, when the time comes save me...whatever that means. I'm going to suppose you, whatever you might be, again, if anything, will have a better handle on this than I." just doesn't work.

 

          mwc

 

Wouldn't an omniscient god know you were lying?  Or at least suspect your motives?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 hours ago, end3 said:

Jesus is a subscription to love.  Choosing Christ and Love is somehow bad?

"...or go to hell!" isn't the way a loving choice is set up.  So, no, jesus is not a subscription to love.

[♦ nivek ♦]

4 hours ago, end3 said:

Jesus is a subscription to love.  Choosing Christ and Love is somehow bad?

 

endo...

 

JUST WHAT IN THE LIVING LIVID FUCK IS THIS GARBAGE PHILOSOPHY?

 

W h u t the christsballs did I just see and read in your quoted above?

 

Have an explanation to this either in some un-circular argument eventually making sense OR show me where Paul was selling patching services for tents using that in a Letters To. 

 

kFL  

[Guest end3]

Key word, subscription.  John 15 makes a pretty good argument.....i.e. subscribe to love and you will produce fruit.  Don't subscribe and your part of the vine will wither and die.  So I don't really see it the same way you do.  I see hell more as a result of not choosing to love.  And it appears life pretty much follows that. 

 

Also, per the story, if God created you, and gave you life, then on your death, given you chose your own subscription, then it's what happens. 

 

Also per the Bible.  God=Love.  Choose Love means you choose God.  God and Jesus are One. 

 

So then you claim you just can't believe.  Faith requires faith, not belief.  We can all go through times of non-belief, but we can still remain faithful.

 

That enough for  you sir?

[Guest end3]

1 hour ago, SkipNChurch said:

 

endo...

 

JUST WHAT IN THE LIVING LIVID FUCK IS THIS GARBAGE PHILOSOPHY?

 

W h u t the christsballs did I just see and read in your quoted above?

 

Have an explanation to this either in some un-circular argument eventually making sense OR show me where Paul was selling patching services for tents using that in a Letters To. 

 

kFL  

I gather the crowd is upset because of the crazy lady?

[Guest end3]

6 hours ago, Astreja said:

 

Choosing to act with compassion and love is fine.

 

Being forced to accept a proxy human sacrifice under threat of eternal torture is implacably evil and abusive.  Utterly despicable, and I reject that mindset unconditionally.

If it's the definition, then it's the definition.  Astreja's house, Astreja's rules, no?  God's creation, God's rules.  He even gives us the answer to the test.....choose Love.  And by faith no less.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I will gladly choose to live god whenever god chooses to love the starving children of the world, the victims of sex trafficking, the victims of domestic violence, the Arab women, and those who suffer from acute athlete's foot.  Until he does, he can kiss my Lilly white ass.  

[Astreja]

2 hours ago, end3 said:

If it's the definition, then it's the definition.  Astreja's house, Astreja's rules, no?  God's creation, God's rules.  He even gives us the answer to the test.....choose Love.  And by faith no less.

 

Ah, but I seem to be neurologically incapable of religious faith.  I tried, really I did, on and off for at least half my life.  Finally I became sufficiently self-aware to realize that my bullshit detector is stuck in the always-on position, and that at most I can pretend to have faith.

 

I'm also incapable of loving a god that would send anyone to hell.

 

That's who I am.  That's who I have always been, even when I was trying to fit in with the religious crowd.  Zero religious faith.  I guess your imaginary fiend is just going to have to suck it up and set me on fire like all the others who lack faith and can't love the abusive S.O.B. either. *shrug*

[♦ nivek ♦]

3 hours ago, end3 said:

Key word, subscription

 

Prove it, use block letters black sharpies and long rolls of kraft paper as necessary to assist me in finding this uninteresting blather in ANY biblical treatise.

 

You know and I know this is bullshit right out of north end of southbound bovine male breeding unit.

Please do NOT try and play fuckity-fuck games with the shortest man-pon string within Staff Members.

 

Two words:

 

"Prove"  "This"

 

kL

 

 

[mwc]

9 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Wouldn't an omniscient god know you were lying?  Or at least suspect your motives?

     That misses my point.

 

     I do want to be saved from <insert whatever>.  Don't you?  Like a fire.  A flood.  Or, as I said, a sinking ship.  You know just whatever.  I'm interested in that.  It's a matter of self-preservation.  My motives are pretty clear here I think.  Normally, people just assume other people want to be saved.  There is nothing to do.  If something goes wrong people generally try to save you.  Xianity goes a different way on that.  It assumes you don't want to be saved.  If something goes wrong god does nothing.

 

     If your house is burning down and a fireman rolls up and tries to save you he doesn't suddenly turn back because you might be lying about whether or not you may not want to die in a fire.  That's just stupid and irresponsible.  Even if you really do yell to him to go away because you want to die in a fire he may, and probably will, still try to rescue you, as long as it doesn't put him at too much risk, simply because that's just not right-minded thinking on your part.  That's what rescuers do.  They rescue people as best they're able. 

 

     Except the one rescuer you mentioned.  A rescuer that takes everything personally.  A rescuer where if someone says they want to die takes it as a personal affront and lets them.  A rescuer that requires a number of rights and rituals be followed in order to perform their duty.  This is not a good person to rely on in a crisis.

 

     So what I was trying to get at it should be as easy as making your intent know to a god, the gods, the universe, that you want to be saved and that should be that.  It should actually be easier in that should be the de facto condition but it's not.  So simply stating it and doing nothing should be enough.  Xianity tries to make it seem that way but there's so much more and which sounds so easy when it's wrapped up in that single word of belief.

 

          mwc

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

45 minutes ago, mwc said:

     That misses my point.

 

     I do want to be saved from <insert whatever>.  Don't you?  Like a fire.  A flood.  Or, as I said, a sinking ship.  You know just whatever.  I'm interested in that.  It's a matter of self-preservation.  My motives are pretty clear here I think.  Normally, people just assume other people want to be saved.  There is nothing to do.  If something goes wrong people generally try to save you.  Xianity goes a different way on that.  It assumes you don't want to be saved.  If something goes wrong god does nothing.

 

     If your house is burning down and a fireman rolls up and tries to save you he doesn't suddenly turn back because you might be lying about whether or not you may not want to die in a fire.  That's just stupid and irresponsible.  Even if you really do yell to him to go away because you want to die in a fire he may, and probably will, still try to rescue you, as long as it doesn't put him at too much risk, simply because that's just not right-minded thinking on your part.  That's what rescuers do.  They rescue people as best they're able. 

 

     Except the one rescuer you mentioned.  A rescuer that takes everything personally.  A rescuer where if someone says they want to die takes it as a personal affront and lets them.  A rescuer that requires a number of rights and rituals be followed in order to perform their duty.  This is not a good person to rely on in a crisis.

 

     So what I was trying to get at it should be as easy as making your intent know to a god, the gods, the universe, that you want to be saved and that should be that.  It should actually be easier in that should be the de facto condition but it's not.  So simply stating it and doing nothing should be enough.  Xianity tries to make it seem that way but there's so much more and which sounds so easy when it's wrapped up in that single word of belief.

 

          mwc

 

 I suppose the church is like when a plane crashes and there are a few survivors.  The rescuers stand at the door of the plane and yell out, "This way!  Everybody come this way!"  But the survivors are all confused and most can't even get their seatbelts off.  The rescuers eventually get fed up and walk away, thinking, "Those assholes didn't want to be saved; fuck them."

[mwc]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 I suppose the church is like when a plane crashes and there are a few survivors.  The rescuers stand at the door of the plane and yell out, "This way!  Everybody come this way!"  But the survivors are all confused and most can't even get their seatbelts off.  The rescuers eventually get fed up and walk away, thinking, "Those assholes didn't want to be saved; fuck them."

     It's worse than that really.

 

    Remember that the bible likes analogies.  And in these people are compared to children and also to animals like sheep.  Rescuing these things is far different than rescuing a full-grown, capable and entirely rational adult.

 

     So now go rescue a plane crash but instead of adults it contains small children and animals.  How does that go?  Do the rescuers get pissed because these didn't put in the proper effort or have the right knowledge on getting out of this tragedy or helping to aid in their own rescue?  Or that they may even actively impede their own rescue (ie. not following directions, hiding, fighting, etc.)?  I would think not.  They might be frustrated that they have to put in some extra effort, which is only natural, but they don't blame these victims for acting as they should.

 

     It is only natural to assume that all on-board, all the children and animals, want to be saved.  There should be no presumption whatsoever that any on-board in spite of how they behave would want to perish.  None on board should have to make an overt declaration or action that they wish to live.  Any rescuer worth their salt should just know this. 

 

     The ultimate rescuer in the universe should be able to comprehend these simple concepts but it seems to elude him and his followers.

 

          mwc

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, mwc said:

     It's worse than that really.

 

    Remember that the bible likes analogies.  And in these people are compared to children and also to animals like sheep.  Rescuing these things is far different than rescuing a full-grown, capable and entirely rational adult.

 

     So now go rescue a plane crash but instead of adults it contains small children and animals.  How does that go?  Do the rescuers get pissed because these didn't put in the proper effort or have the right knowledge on getting out of this tragedy or helping to aid in their own rescue?  Or that they may even actively impede their own rescue (ie. not following directions, hiding, fighting, etc.)?  I would think not.  They might be frustrated that they have to put in some extra effort, which is only natural, but they don't blame these victims for acting as they should.

 

     It is only natural to assume that all on-board, all the children and animals, want to be saved.  There should be no presumption whatsoever that any on-board in spite of how they behave would want to perish.  None on board should have to make an overt declaration or action that they wish to live.  Any rescuer worth their salt should just know this. 

 

     The ultimate rescuer in the universe should be able to comprehend these simple concepts but it seems to elude him and his followers.

 

          mwc

 

"They should have paid attention to the flight safety instructions (bible) that the flight attendant (jesus) gave them from the very beginning of the flight.  Fucking grace and relationships, assholes."  ~End3

[Guest end3]

8 hours ago, SkipNChurch said:

 

Prove it, use block letters black sharpies and long rolls of kraft paper as necessary to assist me in finding this uninteresting blather in ANY biblical treatise.

 

You know and I know this is bullshit right out of north end of southbound bovine male breeding unit.

Please do NOT try and play fuckity-fuck games with the shortest man-pon string within Staff Members.

 

Two words:

 

"Prove"  "This"

 

kL

 

 

I'm not unobservant K.  I seez the handwriting on the wall.  Take care.

[Guest end3]

8 hours ago, Astreja said:

 

Ah, but I seem to be neurologically incapable of religious faith.  I tried, really I did, on and off for at least half my life.  Finally I became sufficiently self-aware to realize that my bullshit detector is stuck in the always-on position, and that at most I can pretend to have faith.

 

I'm also incapable of loving a god that would send anyone to hell.

 

That's who I am.  That's who I have always been, even when I was trying to fit in with the religious crowd.  Zero religious faith.  I guess your imaginary fiend is just going to have to suck it up and set me on fire like all the others who lack faith and can't love the abusive S.O.B. either. *shrug*

So you don't love at all is what you're saying...your brain incapable.  Gotcha.

[mwc]

22 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

"They should have paid attention to the flight safety instructions (bible) that the flight attendant (jesus) gave them from the very beginning of the flight.  Fucking grace and relationships, assholes."  ~End3

     Except the bible doesn't mention airplanes.  We did.

 

     It mentions things like going after lost sheep and whatnot.  So if little Sally falls into an unmarked well then I suppose we just assume Sally wanted to be in the well and leave her there?  Or if little Mr. Fluffy wanders into the street we shouldn't hit the brakes since we should assume Mr. Fluffy wanted to die knowing the risks?

 

     I know the you, yourself, aren't really making that case.  I get you're trying to say that End3, or other xians, would.  It just ignores the idea of the bible saying we're really analogous to children/animals and, that aside, people in general do want to be saved from calamities (in which they're not always capable of assisting in their own rescue or do they always think rationally in those situations).  To say this is about free will, belief, or relationships also ignores the concept of the lost sheep.  As if the shepherd asks for permission before 1) adding a sheep to their flock 2) rescuing that sheep if it is in danger 3) helping rescue an animal that isn't specifically their own if it is in danger if they have the ability and it costs them absolutely nothing (especially if such rescue would mean that animal then becomes theirs by that act of rescue).

 

          mwc

 

[Guest end3]

38 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

"They should have paid attention to the flight safety instructions (bible) that the flight attendant (jesus) gave them from the very beginning of the flight.  Fucking grace and relationships, assholes."  ~End3

Yeah, and even the fucking airlines think that adequate....

[mwc]

5 minutes ago, end3 said:

Yeah, and even the fucking airlines think that adequate....

     Not so.  As bad as airlines are if there is an accident they simply don't leave all the passengers to fend for themselves based on those instructions alone when at all possible.

 

     If there is a crisis the crew tries their best to right the situation.  They provide on-going instructions to the passengers.  They try to get the plane safely to the ground.  If that fails the help assist passengers out of the aircraft.  They try to co-ordinate rescue services with people on the ground.  The list goes on and on.

 

     The only reason all of these wouldn't happen would be in the case of sudden and catastrophic failure.  At that point those little instructions probably aren't going to do much good anyhow.

 

          mwc

 

[Guest end3]

9 minutes ago, mwc said:

     Not so.  As bad as airlines are if there is an accident they simply don't leave all the passengers to fend for themselves based on those instructions alone when at all possible.

 

     If there is a crisis the crew tries their best to right the situation.  They provide on-going instructions to the passengers.  They try to get the plane safely to the ground.  If that fails the help assist passengers out of the aircraft.  They try to co-ordinate rescue services with people on the ground.  The list goes on and on.

 

     The only reason all of these wouldn't happen would be in the case of sudden and catastrophic failure.  At that point those little instructions probably aren't going to do much good anyhow.

 

          mwc

 

My point was that the passengers are not the stewards, that are not the pilots, that are not the mechanics, that are not the design engineers....