View Single Post
October 11th, 2012 (8:04 AM).
The Fresh Prince of Kanto
Three thousand miles from home
Right, time to leap back into the discussion! :D First, the stuff I agree with:
you can't discount me for being a dumbass just because I'm fifteen
Absolutely. While it is statistically more likely that you'll make mistakes due to inexperience/immaturity - so we might be justified in saying, for example, that the world is better off being run by thirty-year-olds than thirteen-year-olds - what should be examined in all cases are the arguments you're putting forward. Are they valid? Are the premises true? If so, your argument is just as sound as any other, and to claim otherwise is to commit the
ad hominem fallacy
And now the stuff I don't:
For whoever doesn't is a fool.
Sounds rather like
Which, of course, was wonderfully summed up by the folks over at RationalWiki like this:
Pascal's wager: Believing in and searching for Kryptonite on the off chance that Superman exists and wants to kill you.
If one uses his name to hurt, he will hurt in return. Whether it be in this life or the afterlife, he will make sure it is the most painful thing you've felt.
Eh? God has a separate morality to us? That's news to me - isn't he supposed to turn the other cheek? If God is allowed to retaliate, to be vengeful, then he
have a different moral code to us. And, because he is God, that code must be superior. So shouldn't we be following that instead?
God loves everyone, and God cares for everyone.
If one uses his name unnecessarily, he will kill you. Whether it be in this life or the afterlife, he will make sure you have the most anguished death of your life.
I just. No. You don't kill the ones you love out of anger. Whatever you're feeling as you condemn them to screaming, burning eternity, it sure isn't love (and before anyone offers 'regret', I'd like to point out that God is perfect and doesn't make mistakes. So
regret). If the deepest kind of love is unconditional - which, okay, that's debatable, but a love that can be broken under specific circumstances is by definition not as strong as one that endures through anything - then that rather implies forgiveness, does it not? I'd rather know a God who told me that whatever I did, at the end of the day he'd still love me than one that said, 'whoa, whoa, sure, do what you want, but ONLY UP TO THIS POINT AND NO FURTHER - screw up majorly enough and I'm going to torture you in unspeakable ways forever.' How on earth is coerced, compulsory love worthy of the name? How is a love born out of fear healthy or natural? These are the questions we must have answers to before accepting the truth of your position: if we disagree fundamentally on what love amounts to, then our arguments miss each other entirely.
tl;dr: to reconcile the ideas of a God who loves infinitely and a God who punishes infinitely, you have to bend the concept of love so far over backwards it snaps. You can call the taped-up broken pieces love, if you want to. But - in my humble view - it's unworthy of the name.
But if one lets him carry out his actions through you, he will pay you back ten times as much as you lost, and ten times as much as you ever have earned. Whether it be in this life or the afterlife, whether it seems like a blessing or a curse, mentally or physically, he will make sure you have an abundance of wealth.
Eh? I thought everyone was equal in heaven. You're telling me there's some formula that decides who gets more and who gets less? Surely that leads to discontent and jealousy. Can't we all just have the same - enough to keep us happy, no more, no less - for once?
If one uses his name to keep a man or woman from the truth, he will certainly let you die in the afterlife.
If only. The cruellest part of the Christian doctrine is that God
just kill you and have done with it. No, instead you're hurled into insufferable torture for eternity.
Think about that. Eternity. Can we even conceive of such a state as finite beings? Can we fully understand the horror of such a fate? And how could anyone possibly be happy in heaven knowing the overwhelming pain and suffering happening beneath them?
Chances are you'll
someone undergoing that torture. Could you live with yourself if you went about your afterlife never thinking of them, never sympathising, never pleading with God to reverse their fate? What if it was your brother? Your wife? Your child?
Wouldn't the mothers who'd lost their children want more than anything to be with them, even if the pain was unimaginable? Anything but sit helplessly on their cloud,
how much their baby boy or girl was hurting. That, to me, sounds like Hell. An insidious, emotional Hell, with none of the stereotypical fire and flames, none of the brimstone, the cackling demons - and somehow all the worse for that.
Trapped upstairs while your child burns beneath you - with no hope of escape in either case. I genuinely shudder to think of it.
Joined Feb 2012
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Barrels
Find all posts by Barrels
Find threads started by Barrels
Ignore Posts by Barrels