(January 31, 2018 at 3:27 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:

---

(January 31, 2018 at 2:39 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I'm still looking to what you mean by individual agency here?  To my understanding, even in N. Korea and Saudi Arabia, that the people still have individual agency.   I don't think that if we where to become a dictatorship this very minute, that all of the sudden we would become robots as a result.

Also, even if they are typical, I don't see why you would point to North Korea and Saudi Arabia as an example.   Are you saying that they are good?   If not, then even if atypical  you can't reference a good dictatorship/monarchy by hand waving to these countries.   Which still leaves us with the question on what is so bad.  I'm sorry, but as I recently alluded to, I don't think that your exasperation provides us with any detail or a case for what you are complaining about.

It's not an area I have studied greatly, but I'm sure that there have been good kings, who served their people well, and  who had a strong and good government.  Even if we are left without an example, then I'm sure that an abstract ruler could be thought of, which still fits the definition of dictator/monarch and not require such control.

It is also occurring to me, that there could be some equivocation going on here.  The term dictator may be used in regards to an oppressive rule.  I think that Zen Classin may have referred to the administration here as dictators in regards to his free speech.  Another meaning of the word is referring to the structure of a government, with a single ruler as the ultimate authority.  I have been referring to the latter, because of the reference to lords/ monarchies and there is only a slight difference (in how the gained power).  I think that it would be an error of equivocation, to take the meaning of one sense of the word, and impose it on the other.  Do you think that this is possibly where some of our conflict comes from?

---

Okay, let's simplify it:

I mean agency as a means of having a say in the structure of the larger social framework in which a person lives.  A monarch or dictator - assuming they have direct control over such rules and their implementation - doesn't allow their subjects agency in that sense.  It doesn't matter if the rules and their implementation are always beneficial, the individual's voice, and their right to self-determination, is being stifled.

Now, a lot of existing monarchies have various legislative bodies who ostensibly represent the interests of the people.  But there's no such apparatus described in the bible.  It's just Jesus/god is king, and that's it.

I believe that such a setup is, indeed, harmful.

Regarding the forum, even though Tibs is the owner, the staff here is open to suggestions from the rank and file, and, indeed, changes have been made because of it (see: the most recent rule about targeting groups for no other reason than to insult or incite them).  It's a collaborative relationship.  Moreover, anyone can choose to not engage with others here without fear of punishment.  Don't like the way things are done?  Then leave.  That's not possible under the heaven/hell binary.

The same can be said for work relationships, or even familial relationships once one has the means to be self-sufficient.  The god relationship is unlike any other, and it's one that doesn't respect the individual's choice to not be involved.  It's engage, or suffer.  And for me, no matter how much bliss may be involved if one does decide to join the arrangement, the overall structure of it is troublesome.

I could disagree some, in that I think that even in a monarchy, you can still voice your concerns and they can be taken into consideration. Likewise, there are very few true democracies, so you voice may not carry the weight that you think.

But, if I am understanding you correctly; you could have the two different governments with all things being equal, except for the structure, they both have the same rules, the same outcomes, functionally they are no different. But if you did not have a hand in that outcome, then you think it is evil or at least undesirable to the point of you cannot accept it. I am curious how active are you in the government? And while this is just a subjective opinion (which is really all you are advancing) this sounds like control issues to me. For me, if there isn't a need for me to be involved, I'll often give up control. Some of my best motorcycle trips, I just followed.

As to not being able to change or opt out. I sorry I don't think I understand this argument either. Physics is out of my control, and I didn't get a say in it; however, I don't get upset at it because I wasn't consulted.

Blah blah blah..and then somebody calls god a cunt, and all this "oh, well, in a good dictatorship" nonsense goes right out the window. Rinse and repeat with any number of infractions his benevolence is to fragile to withstand.

Agree any god so petty that minor infaction triggers him to rage is no better then any mortal tyrant . Any god who worries more about were two people put their genitals then ending poverty is no good being . The judeo christian god is a petty child who will hear no decent  and tolerate no infraction to his all too petty dogmas. If paradise were offered to follow such a being he can keep it . If eternal torment is the cost of defying such a loathsome entity then so be it . No hell can be a awful a fate as bowing to such a creature.

(January 31, 2018 at 11:57 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(January 31, 2018 at 3:27 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:

---

---

Okay, let's simplify it:

I mean agency as a means of having a say in the structure of the larger social framework in which a person lives.  A monarch or dictator - assuming they have direct control over such rules and their implementation - doesn't allow their subjects agency in that sense.  It doesn't matter if the rules and their implementation are always beneficial, the individual's voice, and their right to self-determination, is being stifled.

Now, a lot of existing monarchies have various legislative bodies who ostensibly represent the interests of the people.  But there's no such apparatus described in the bible.  It's just Jesus/god is king, and that's it.

I believe that such a setup is, indeed, harmful.

Regarding the forum, even though Tibs is the owner, the staff here is open to suggestions from the rank and file, and, indeed, changes have been made because of it (see: the most recent rule about targeting groups for no other reason than to insult or incite them).  It's a collaborative relationship.  Moreover, anyone can choose to not engage with others here without fear of punishment.  Don't like the way things are done?  Then leave.  That's not possible under the heaven/hell binary.

The same can be said for work relationships, or even familial relationships once one has the means to be self-sufficient.  The god relationship is unlike any other, and it's one that doesn't respect the individual's choice to not be involved.  It's engage, or suffer.  And for me, no matter how much bliss may be involved if one does decide to join the arrangement, the overall structure of it is troublesome.

I could disagree some, in that I think that even in a monarchy, you can still voice your concerns and they can be taken into consideration.  Likewise, there are very few true democracies, so you voice may not carry the weight that you think.

But,  if I am understanding you correctly; you could have the two different governments with all things being equal, except for the structure,  they both have the same rules, the same outcomes, functionally they are no different.  But if you did not have a hand in that outcome, then you think it is evil or at least undesirable to the point of you cannot accept it.  I am curious how active are you in the government?    And while this is just a subjective opinion (which is really all you are advancing)  this sounds like control issues to me.  For me, if there isn't a need for me to be involved, I'll often give up control.  Some of my best motorcycle trips, I just followed.

As to not being able to change or opt out.  I sorry I don't think I understand this argument either.  Physics is out of my control, and I didn't get a say in it; however, I don't get upset at it because I wasn't consulted.

I vote in every election and do my best to stay informed. I can't have a more direct involvement due to the day-to-day logistical issues presented by my disability. Suffice it to say, I'm not being hypocritical.

And, of course, with those motorcycle trips, you still had the option to voice your opinion to the group to go to a certain destination, or say 'screw it' and go your own way with little to no negative impact (certainly nothing remotely nearing hell)....

With regards to physics, remember: my issue is with the notion of divine beings with an agenda attempting to lord over humanity. Moreover, I didn't exist at the advent of physics, so I couldn't have been consulted anyway.

Also keep in mind, I'm certain that death is the annihilation of the self. I'm just trying to figure out why this particular part of Christianity is so popular. Why is it such a powerful hook? I doubt I'll truly grasp it, because declaring "Jesus is Lord" generates a pretty strong negative visceral reaction in me. And it's not from any church trauma - I've been in a church maybe 10-15 times in my entire life, bored to tears each time.

1. You can voice an opinion in a dictatorship but the dictators power does not come from those he rules . And his continued power does not rest on any form of consensus by the ruled . Monarchy by definition is anti consensus.  

2. If your voice is not respected in a democracy that not a flaw in democracy it's a flaw in a democracy . which can be fixed . 

3. The law of physics are not equal to the dictates of a tyrant so this comparison fails . 

4. Comparing Tibs ownership of the website to the dictates of a Tyrant is again failed comparison . You really suck at this . 

So this line of "reasoning " fails spectacularly .

(January 31, 2018 at 11:03 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Psalms is loaded with hateful verses.

Yes, that's why I said you guys skip "a good bit" of Psalms.

Quote:Psalms 2:12 (NLT) = "Submit to God’s royal son, or he will become angry,
    and you will be destroyed in the midst of all your activities—
for his anger flares up in an instant.
    But what joy for all who take refuge in him!"

Even here, you fail to see the "joy" part.

---

(January 31, 2018 at 7:08 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: Seriously, have you read it?

Yes, years ago, and every now and again as it comes up.

Quote:It's pretty puzzling. Also, some of the sayings seem to be rudimentary versions of the stuff found in the Sermon on the Mount/Plain. I wasn't commenting on the "credibility" of the document. To me, canonicity does little to make one text more credible than another. I merely found it interesting, and said as much.

Er, OK, it's interesting.

I just read this scenario in Mark Johnston's book 'Saving God--Religion After Idolatry'. It seems quite relevant to this thread.

Suppose aliens from space land in front of the UN and chastise us about our wars and our bad character. They announce that they will reveal technology that would add to the length of our lives, our happiness, and our help if only we agree to subject ourselves to their will and adopt their plan for humanity without question.

The 'dark' prediction is that most people would happily agree to those terms.

In the second act of this story, however, it is revealed that the aliens only want us to eat or to use as fuel for their starships. This leads to the destruction of humanity.

But, and this is important, the second act of the story is irrelevant. if we give up our dignity and self-determination, we have *already* destroyed ourselves! NO benefit is worth that price!

And yes, this is as true if we are talking a God as if we are talking about space aliens.

The aliens will have to learn that earth goes hard.  People have been offering other people a similar deal for eons.  We predictably return with a counteroffer of violence.  In the most dire of scenarios, "subjugate yourselves or die"...we've been known to burn our own houses and salt our own fields, to kill our loved ones, and then ourselves.  

Ultimately, one could draw an inference from this as to why any dictatorship..no matter how powerful the despot or how sweet the offer is taken to be, is doomed to failure. Some may be interested, even willing...all never have been, and never will be. In conflict between the interests of the fundamentally complacent and the zealously defiant....the former is not equipped to withstand the latter, no matter how many troops the emperor provides.

For Jesus/God to be our Lord we have to turn our lives over to Him, this is a process of growth through learned trust because of who He says He is and then proves that to us. As CL said, He is our creator and whether you want Him or not He owns your life and can do with it as He sees fit within His eternal plan. I personally want an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent Being to be my Lord because He know all that is good for me and has the power to make it so. I can't understand why anyone wouldn't want their creator to be their Lord, honestly. I know you don't want it and that you will make all sorts of excuses to convince yourself that He's not your creator, what I do not understand is why you can't just man up and say I don't want Him instead of pretending He doesn't exist.

GC

The benevolent dictator possesses human chattel.  How quaint.