Jesus as Lord - why is this appealing to so many?

[John V]

Does someone who is driving a car who has an epileptic seizure that results in an accident exercising free will?

What the fuck does that have to do with the topic at hand?

Given enough time and enough atheists, every issue ends up at free will.

[The Grand Nudger]

Were you expecting a serious answer from a person who concedes that earthly tyrants are bad, but that their benevolent god can't stand the presence of a person who puts the bad touch on his own dick?  God does what god wants, and that includes seizures.  That sinner probably shook it one too many times after he took a piss.

The seizure and the car crash, just the beginning. That's nothing compared to the eternity he'll spend in hell.

[vulcanlogician]

What the fuck does that have to do with the topic at hand?

Given enough time and enough atheists, every issue ends up at free will.  

At least atheists don't use it as an excuse to explain how an omnipotent being fucked things up so badly.

[Catholic_Lady]

---

The method of delivery is also important, IMO.  A feudal system or dictatorship being necessary makes me question if the result will be as good as is being claimed.

---

---

Someone living in an earthly dictatorship or kingdom typically has little to no individual agency.  I mean, you're aware North Korea exists, correct?  Saudi Arabia?

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?

---

This is something I've noticed here. Some will complain about God having given us free will because it allows us to do bad things. Meanwhile there is complaint about God being a tyrant who won't let us do what we want lol.

I think that some do both, sometimes right after the other!

Yeah, that's what I meant. Ain't that the truth.

[KevinM1]

Also, the best bosses aren't dictators, but consensus builders who work with their employees, and are open to change.  They may have the final say, but collaboration is highly valued by them.

Says the guy who's dictating terms to the Christians rather than working with us to build consensus.  

How is repeating your phrasing somehow dictating terms to you? Or are you attempting to say that "Jesus is Lord" isn't a thing in Christianity?

Keep in mind, also, I'm not demanding you abandon Christianity. I'm merely questioning why Christians are so eager to live under a lord-like figure, and have given my reasons for finding the idea abhorrent.

[The Grand Nudger]

Call me the next time a cop shows up to a crime in progress and says "Well, don't wanna mess with the perps free will!".  

This dictator of theirs keeps failing by comparison to the lowly human refuse it so clearly abhors.  I don;t see how it;s going to make a better dictator if it makes for an entirely worse person.

[Jehanne]

Does someone who is driving a car who has an epileptic seizure that results in an accident exercising free will?

What the fuck does that have to do with the topic at hand?

Given enough time and enough atheists, every issue ends up at free will.

I never brought it up; it was "you" who decided to start discussing it.

[Minimalist]

The OP gave reasons, Alpha.

OK, America. To which I reply - we experience many more power relationships than just the federal government. I gave an example of one that is working out great for me. Another, more common example of a benevolent dictatorship would be parenting. 

I think people aren't actually considering the "benevolent" part.

Men should be either treated generously or destroyed, because they take revenge for slight injuries - for heavy ones they cannot.

--Niccolo Machiavelli

Then consider how our current tyrant is treating his asshole criminal billionaire buddies as opposed to, say, the people on Puerto Rico.

[Chad32]

Well there's plenty of evidence from the bible that says I'm right. I mean, Adam and Eve get kicked out of Eden for disobeying him once. A guy gets stones to death for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week. Moses and Jonah say pick someone else when Yahweh wants them to do something, and he forces them anyway. Not to mention Moses gets banned from the promise land for striking a rock, instead of talking to it. Where's the autonomy here?

Your examples are like saying that there isn't autonomy in a democracy because people who break the law are put in jail. Well, yeah they are, but those of us who do the right things have freedoms.

Here's an example of us being given autonomy and authority in this life, and even greater position in the next. We judge the world, and judge the angels. 

1 Cor 6
2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?

We don't list "everything we don't like" as breaking a law, nor do we have the death penalty for every law broken. That's why democracy is good, and dictatorships are bad.

[KevinM1]

---

The method of delivery is also important, IMO.  A feudal system or dictatorship being necessary makes me question if the result will be as good as is being claimed.

---

---

Someone living in an earthly dictatorship or kingdom typically has little to no individual agency.  I mean, you're aware North Korea exists, correct?  Saudi Arabia?

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.