(September 1, 2015 at 9:32 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Typical mistake, the commandments are not cumulative. Just because God commanded Noah to build an ark doesn't mean all believers must become sailors. The antediluvians had one command: be fruitful and multiply. The lack of explicit laws during the preflood period did not absolve people from justice. Following the flood the Noahide rules govern. The Abrahamic period was an age of conscience. Then came the ancient Israelite theocracy that required its own form of governance. When the temple was destroyed so also was temple worship. Christ raised a new temple in the heart of each man and woman and along with it a deeper understanding of the principles of justice and mercy behind the laws of each dispensation.

Well put, Chad. 

(September 1, 2015 at 9:51 am)abaris Wrote:

(September 1, 2015 at 9:43 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: Some of you are still acting as though it's a "punishment" cast by God, that no one deserves. It's not. It's a state of being that a person puts themselves in, and in doing so, they make themselves pretty miserable.

That's why I called it mental acrobatics. Theists do that in various shapes or form when it comes to the topic of hell. As I said, the Catholic stance is only the nicer version of the Evangelical position. But both have in common that they shift responsibilities in order to keep god free from any blame. It's the individual condemning themselves.

What it reminds me of is Franz Kafka's "the Trial", which more or less makes the same point. And there's a reason why Kafkaesk has become the word for surreal distortion.

Just wanted to point out that the quote attributed to me was actually written by CL.

(September 1, 2015 at 9:43 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(September 1, 2015 at 12:09 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Judging from some of the questions/comments, I can see that some of you simply did not understand the original post lol. I'm sorry, but I just don't know how to make it any more clear. I thought the article explained the concept pretty well. Some of you are still acting as though it's a "punishment" cast by God, that no one deserves. It's not. It's a state of being that a person puts themselves in, and in doing so, they make themselves pretty miserable.

That's your definition of it, which is no more informed than anyone else's here.

That is true. But when someone asks me questions/makes comments to me about the definition of Hell that is not the one I believe in, it makes me think they probably just don't understand the one I actually believe in. ...If that makes sense lol. 

It's like, I say everything I say in the OP, and then someone comes on here and says to me "Well, I just don't get why a loving God would punish people." Ok, right. I don't either lol. That's not what I believe.

Haha, what else am I supposed to say to that person?

(September 1, 2015 at 10:49 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(September 1, 2015 at 9:51 am)abaris Wrote: That's why I called it mental acrobatics. Theists do that in various shapes or form when it comes to the topic of hell. As I said, the Catholic stance is only the nicer version of the Evangelical position. But both have in common that they shift responsibilities in order to keep god free from any blame. It's the individual condemning themselves.

What it reminds me of is Franz Kafka's "the Trial", which more or less makes the same point. And there's a reason why Kafkaesk has become the word for surreal distortion.

Just wanted to point out that the quote attributed to me was actually written by CL.

Sorry, Parker.... I just wanted to extract CLs quote, since I didn't want to look it up. Somehowyour name got stuck.

(September 1, 2015 at 10:49 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(September 1, 2015 at 9:51 am)abaris Wrote: That's why I called it mental acrobatics. Theists do that in various shapes or form when it comes to the topic of hell. As I said, the Catholic stance is only the nicer version of the Evangelical position. But both have in common that they shift responsibilities in order to keep god free from any blame. It's the individual condemning themselves.

What it reminds me of is Franz Kafka's "the Trial", which more or less makes the same point. And there's a reason why Kafkaesk has become the word for surreal distortion.

Just wanted to point out that the quote attributed to me was actually written by CL.

I fixed that quote attribution for you all! The bill will be in the mail within a few days.

(September 1, 2015 at 10:56 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(September 1, 2015 at 10:49 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: Just wanted to point out that the quote attributed to me was actually written by CL.

I fixed that quote attribution for you all! The bill will be in the mail within a few days.

Who is Bill and why have you mailed him that is a cruel thing to do.

(September 1, 2015 at 10:59 am)Iroscato Wrote:

(September 1, 2015 at 10:56 am)pocaracas Wrote: I fixed that quote attribution for you all! The bill will be in the mail within a few days.

Who is Bill and why have you mailed him that is a cruel thing to do.

It's a bill, not a Bill. Can't you read?!

(August 31, 2015 at 8:35 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: That second one is the big question. There is a theory I've heard, and that is that God keeps Himself hidden from us in this life because otherwise many people would blame Him for anything that went wrong, and always ask Him for things.

People already "always ask [God] for things" though.  That's what intercessory prayer is: petitioning God to intercede on their, or another's, behalf.

And God (every god, not just the Christian one) is/are already blamed for lots of things.

Thus, to avoid being blamed for things and avoid being asked for things cannot be an explanation for divine hiddenness because those thing are already demonstrably happening with your god.

Quote:I'm just trying to imagine... if God was someone we could see and talk with every day, and we developed a personal relationship with Him in that way like we would with a friend, considering who He is (all powerful and all that), we'd probably demand a lot from Him.

I don't accept the idea that if we developed the kind of relationship with a god we had with our friends that we would then start making demands of that god.  Most people who maintain friendships with people who are, let's say, socioeconomically better off than themselves don't go around demanding that that friend pay their bills for them.  There are some people who do take advantage of other people in that way, yes.  Granted.  But most don't.

Quote:We'd probably get down right pissed off at Him every time something very unfortunate happened in our lives. He'd be the scapegoat, and he'd be hated. We'd hate Him. Hating God is not good for our own well being, so it is for our own sake that He does not present Himself openly in our everyday lives.

But if we had the kind of relationship you imagine or hope that we might have with a God who makes itself known to us (a friendship), then that god could explain its rationale for its actions to us when we question it - and if that god is omnipotent then it could explain its rationale to us in such a way that we would understand why the thing that happened had to happen.  Although, if you want to get really picky, if this god really is omnipotent, then it could make all things happen without also requiring that those things be accompanied by pain, destruction and death, and if this god really is a benevolent god it would make sure that pain, destruction and death are avoided because intentionally making someone suffer is not a benevolent act.  And if this god is omniscient, then it would know the outcome of all actions it could/would take and whether anyone would suffer and thus avoid those actions that lead to suffering.  Classic Problem of Evil stuff.

It seems to me that if you make the reasonable assumptions that someone who calls themselves your friend would (1) make themselves known to you (otherwise, how could you have a friendship with them?  I mean, other than a completely delusional one that exists only in the mind of one party in the relationship) and (2) that this friend would explain themselves to you if you questioned their actions or motives, and the, to me, seriously overreaching assumption that (3) some god or other exists, then, again, to me, the most reasonable conclusion to draw from the facts that (1) this god doesn't make itself known to us, and (2) this god doesn't deem it necessary to explain itself when questioned by a "friend", is that this god doesn't want a friendship with humanity in the way you, CL, seem to want from it.