Risk, Reward, and God

[Totenkindly]

I don't think we are on the same page when we think of the abstracted ideal that is love. If we were, I would need no explanation. I still haven't been able to explain it. It's a feeling.

Uh, dude, please... no, no cop outs?

I've been spiritual for almost 40 years, in the Christian faith (my entire life narrative revolves around that), and I'm not going that route with you either. If it was that inherent, I'm pretty sure I'd get the gist. But I don't agree with you, both from my spiritual background and from being a parent.

"Feelings" don't mean anything, I've seen too many religious people just believe whatever feels convenient because they don't want to quantify things and test them, that's all.

I think it is usually fruitless to compare god to "real life" analogies though. My conception of God lives outside of social constructs. (I know... I started it )

lol

Actually, I disagree with that too. I think God is not relevant unless we have some reflections of him/her/it in the observable and experienced world. If God is not reflected within our system, then he is irrelevant and unknowable.

Isn't it just more that we have to acknowledge that our "examples" could never totally capture something beyond like God? But they can still offer us a facet into who/what he might be?

Sorry, that might have come out bluntly. I think I have a lot of that going around this week. *groan* Anyway, those are just my ideas?

 

[notjeffgoldblum]

"Feelings" don't mean anything.

It looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Orangey]

I like to compare the concept of people condemning themselves to hell to idea of criminals sending themselves to jail. It just doesn't happen. Criminals commit crimes and they may well know that they are acting in contradiction with the wishes of the vast majority of society, but the fact remains that it takes something besides their crime to actually put them in jail. God sends people to hell, not people. (then again I don't consider the concept of heaven to be all that appealing but that's a whole 'nother thread)

Well, like I said, I don't really buy the whole 'free-willingly sending ourselves to hell' bit. I'm just saying that that's how certain believers can hold onto their idea of a benevolent God while still believing that the bad people will go to hell.

One problem that I'd point out, in particular, is that even if we grant that people may freely choose to act such that they may go to either heaven or hell (which is not a safe assumption), the constructs of heaven and hell, and the mechanisms put into place to sort people into either place ARE God's creations. So it's not like there is this extra-Godly law that forces God to ascribe to it...God creates these places, the rules used to sort people into them, and so on. So in an indirect sense he does punish people, because he dictates what is punishable and how said punishment is to be carried out.

@Jennifer...yay, someone thought that was funny (even if mildly) .

 

[notjeffgoldblum]

Thanks to the black magic of INTPs I momentarily completely forgot what this thread was originally about.

 

[Orangey]

You wanted us to discuss that quote, which basically said that God loves both the sinners and the saints, and everyone in between. I think that's pretty much what we've been doing.

 

[notjeffgoldblum]

You wanted us to discuss that quote, which basically said that God loves both the sinners and the saints, and everyone in between. I think that's pretty much what we've been doing.

Ah yes. Yes, yes. Thank you for putting that back into perspective.

So I guess the new question is what is love?

(here's to hoping MacGuffin doesn't see this post first)

 

[Orangey]

[YOUTUBE="nsCXZczTQXo"]Similarly Perplexed[/YOUTUBE]

 

[notjeffgoldblum]

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I was speaking of the judeo-chrIslamic God.

There are many definitions of this God, which do you have in mind?

 

[notjeffgoldblum]

There are many definitions of this God, which do you have in mind?

The first quote should suffice to describe the version of the God I had in mind when I made this thread.

The second quote describes my take on an "improved" version of it.

 

[Eileen]

Hey, what about MY questions?

 

[notjeffgoldblum]

Hey, what about MY questions?

I thought those were meant to be rhetorical.

What is "real"? What is "true"? What is a "lie"? Sometimes I think that is so much more relevant than "What is God?"

Also, what is "everything" and "nothing"?

RE: "everything" and "nothing", the answer would change depending on who you are asking. I think the easiest way to give you my definition is just by rephrasing the statements themselves.

I think this is the way most theists view the first statement:

"If you believe in God, and he turns out to not be real, then you don't go to hell, but if he is real, you get to go to heaven."

The meaning of "everything" is different for the non-theist:

Everything, whether God turns out to be real or not, is simply all that has absence of religion as a prerequisite.

 

[Eileen]

I thought those were meant to be rhetorical.

No, not at all. It matters--what is "real"? What does it mean to believe something is REAL or TRUE?

 

[notjeffgoldblum]

No, not at all. It matters--what is "real"? What does it mean to believe something is REAL or TRUE?

It means an assumption was made.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

The first quote should suffice to describe the version of the God I had in mind when I made this thread.

The second quote describes my take on an "improved" version of it.

Direct me to it, because I do not recall seeing a coherent and thorough definition of any particular entity in this thread.

 

[notjeffgoldblum]

Direct me to it, because I do not recall seeing a coherent and thorough definition of any particular entity in this thread.

How about using a little of that N in your INTP?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

How about using a little of that N in your INTP?

No thanks. Just an attempt on your part to make what is implausible appear plausible. Sound thought needs no appeal to mysticism, it can be stated clearly and thoroughly.

 

[notjeffgoldblum]

No thanks. Just an attempt on your part to make what is implausible appear plausible. Sound thought needs no appeal to mysticism, it can be stated clearly and thoroughly.

Why, then, are you the only one that doesn't know what I'm talking about? How can I not appeal to mysticism when talking about God? This thread is not about truth. It is about my perception of the general perception of God that I have so far observed in America which is BEST defined, in my opinion, by the first statement I gave.

 

[Googly_Eyes]

Pascal's wager = *fart*

Simplified, it's essentially asking atheists, "What if you're wrong?" The most obvious response is "What if you're wrong?" Worse yet, what if you're half wrong? A blissfully ignorant (but blissful!) life isn't the only possible outcome for a Christian. What if it turns out that Islam was right? Then you lost just as bad as the atheists.

Besides, even if heaven and hell do exist I'd rather live my life the way I want to live it and wind up in Hell for it than not and wind up in heaven. Heaven and Hell are unchangeable. It's either eternal torment or eternal bliss. Seems the only place any of the decisions that we make will have an impact is right here on earth. Do you really think anyone wins if the purpose of our lives is to achieve a life without purpose? Best to actually do something positive in the only place that matters and suffer for it, I say.

And my temperament has a huge problem with the will-doesn't-matter connotation it carries with it. Go ahead, take the blue pill. What does your free will matter so long as your comfortable with your ignorance? Go to hell.

 

[lowtech redneck]

What does your free will matter so long as your comfortable with your ignorance?

"Free will" is a faith-based concept, and I think the ability to believe in it is a major reason theists are generally happier than non-theists-and if the metaphysical dosn't exist, then utilitarian consequences are all that matter.