My Escatological Vision

[Anomalocaris]

[crosses legs, unwraps lollipop, and gets ready to watch shit fly]

Just saying, the lollipop is just as good if you don't cross your legs.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

[crosses legs, unwraps lollipop, and gets ready to watch shit fly]

Don't know 'bout you,but I'm done with this one. It's not like talking to a chook at all,more like a parish priest or a wombat--they make the average chook seem intellectually gifted.

I've put it on ignore. I'm too close to telling it what I really think, then I'd get myself banned.

[Zen Badger]

I suggest that the title of this thread should be changed to

"My Scatological vision"

Much more appropriate I think

[KichigaiNeko]

I suggest that the title of this thread should be changed to

"My Scatological vision"

Much more appropriate I think

I would question the use of the word "vision" also.....

[dqualk]

Yet another inaccurate comparison. The Catholic Church is a dogma-promoting institution around which Catholics are organized. Atheism is in no way an institution, and atheists generally do not organize themselves. It is therefore much more valid to generalize about the former when compared to the latter.

But the Church's dogma is good concerning this issue.

So if someone rapes and kills 100 children, but feels bad about it later and asks for God’s forgiveness, he can still go to heaven. But if someone else lives a good moral life and rejects the silly idea of God all the way to the grave, he goes to hell.

How utterly repulsive and immoral.

Did you even read this thread? I completely reject this idea and offer another one. The entire point of this thread is to demonstrate that your assertion above is not held by all Christians. How about this one, if someone rapes a child and truly is pentinent, and if someone did not believe and is truly pentinant, both go to heaven.

---

Really? A well-placed "fuck" here or there means you're a "slave to passion"?

When it is well placed its fine. However, the only place one might place it well would be in a fight or a screaming mathc or something. You should never say fuck if the person you are talking to you is legitimately trying to reason with you. Which is what I am doing. I am listening and responding accordingly.

How fucking condescending.

You take offense where none was intended.

When you say "do something evil" you imply it was something pretty damn bad, not a "stupid mistake". Stupid mistake is me forgetting to pay the water bill and my roommate having to forgive me because it was shut off for a day. No lasting harm.

Touch a child and I have no forgiveness for you. You knew it was wrong on every level and you did it anyway, willfully and with full knowledge of its heinous nature. Let your contradictory god forgive you - you'll have none from this woman.

Well that is fine, but I would forgive simply becasue I truly believe that it helps everyone more, the victim and culprit.

Also, do you really belive that it is wrong on "every level." Or do you believe that it is wrong to you and like minded indiviudals? I don't mean this to be rude. I just believe that once you believing an intrinsic right and wrong you are one step closer to Theism.

---

I will never, ever offer any forgiveness to a child molester nor will I respect, but hold utter contempt for, child molester sympathizers like yourself or even if said sympathizer is an all powerful universe creating God.

To say all the molester has to do is ask for forgiveness sincerly and he is to be forgiven is to sympathize with the molester.

I can sympathize with the man who was arrested for possessing a joint, because I smoke pot.

I can sympathize with tax evaders because I evade them myself.

Yes, I'm drawing a parallel here.

Major differance is I do not expect nor do I expect to be offered any 'forgiveness' no matter how sincerely sorry I am for failing to file/pay my taxes. Yet you believe child molesters/rapists/murderers should be offered such accomodation.

I'm hypothesizing your sympathy for child molesters is either becasue your church sympathizes with child molesters or you would enjoy a bit of molesting yourself.

Well if you read this thread you would see that you are the kind of person that I believe would not be able to make it into heaven. Although, I do not believe you are sincere, I think if you were faced with the reality of a loving God you would repent and have forgiveness on whoever. But in this case you would be like the older brother in the story of the prodigal son. You refuse to enter the party(heaven) because you belevie your justice is more absolute than God's, thereby elevating yourself up to a phony god. I hope you do not take offense that I used you as an example. I sincerely do not bleive you are going to hell, if you are searching for Truth in charity, I really believe you will be saved in the end.

I do not believe that child molesters will not pay for their crime, on earth and in purgatory. On earth they will recieve the death penalty or life in prison, in purgatory I'm sure their suffering will border on inferno pain. However, I never said I believe and child molester will go to heaven, I just said they might, if they have a truly penitent heart. However, you have to ask yourself, if this person was willing to molest a child, is he even capable of true pentinence? Probably not, and therefore all molesters likely go to hell.

---

It's not a cop out you colossal cretin, you meant to say a "red herring", and no its not! I am not trying to evade the subject matter when I am addressing it directly i.e your inability to grasp what atheism is and is not. Don't quote idiomatic expressions when you haven't taken the time to learn their meanings or what they are referring to.

Well if I meant red herring then I apologize and I'll just say red herring. I know what an atheist is, like I've said, I was using the term atheist to meant materialist atheist for the sake of not having to write materialist everything I said atheist. Ive already said Ill start doing that.

What part of "you don't get to have your own definition of atheism when a current working definition of the word already exists in the English Language" did you not understand? One can be a theist and a materialist as well you know, but that does not give you any entitlement to address theism broadly as "theistic materialism".

Listen brosef, people use the word atheist to mean materialist atheist all the time. Words can have many meanings, they do not always mean one thing. One can say atheist in the broadest sense, or in a more particular sense when talking to a certain audience. But so I do not offend your sensibilities Ill say materialist athiest, even though its over stating the obvious as its clear by the context that when I say atheist I'm actually referring to atheistic materialism.

Prove what? That atheism is logically as old as theism? Simple, were you born with the belief in god or gods?

Well a child likely doesnt believe in anything because he lacks the intellectual capacity. That is like saying a rock is an atheist. Also, babies do have some beliefs, for example, a child believes that his mother means to take care of him, and so he has faith in his mother, perhaps babies believe in God. Children are very apt to believe, and will believe in God without any explanation as if it is natural to believe in God.

That's arguing for a negative. Do you understand the difference between ontologically positive claims and negative claims? If I say the giant frog in the sun isn't real, is that a positive or a negative claim?

I'm afraid you are wrong.

A positive claim is any claim about the existence or properties of anything. Saying "There is no god" is a positive claim. Saying "there is a god" is also a positive claim.
Saying "I don't believe X" is a positive claim about your belief, but not about X. Lacking a belief in X because of the absence of evidence does not constitute a positive claim about X, it merely constitutes the null hypothesis. Any sane person should hold that position about everything for which they have no evidence.

---

I saw that and understood (but disagree with) her position. I understand The Jewish position that justice is not about vengeance.

PLUS I really do understand (but disagree with) the Christian position of "hate the sin but love the sinner" . At the Catholic boys school I attended,I was taught there are no unforgivable sins.

However, the issue is not that those rock spiders were forgiven, but that the Church put itself above the law to protect those creatures AS POLICY. (IE the position that canon law trumps civil law) The church CHOSE to protect itself rather than its weakest,most helpless members;children. THAT is despicable and unforgivable.

Your position of a Catholic apologist,defending the indefensible reveals you as a fool with limited capacity for independent thought.

---and the horse you rode in on

It is unfortunate that you think that. It demonstrates you to be a fool with a closed mind.

Yes, that is nice that you disagree with it, but I brought it up to show some of the arguments for forgivness, and that is that it also helps the victim. Also, most Jews believe justice is about vengeance, Mengele swims agains the current of mainstread Judaism, or at least that is what the documentary puts forward.

The Church is above the secular law. Also the Church is a law unto herself. The UN recongnizes the Vatica as a nation and it has the right to make its own laws concerning itself. This is what Canon Law is. In the case of molestation the priest is to be defrocked and handed over to secular authorities. Most all bishops did, and do this.

Once more you demonstrate your extreme arrogance, that is if I have read you correctly. Are you claiming that all defenders of the Church's teachings are "fools." If so you are including some of the most intelligent men that ever lived including, Galileo, Leibniz, et al. Also, thank you for your kind statement of a "limited capacity" implying that I am capable of some independent thought lol.

[OnlyNatural]

How about this one, if someone rapes a child and truly is pentinent, and if someone did not believe and is truly pentinant, both go to heaven.

You're just proving my point: that no matter what you do, no matter how horrible, if you are truly penitent, you will go to heaven.

'If someone did not believe and is truly penitent...' You mean like an atheist who repents on his deathbed? What if he never believes, and never repents?

Again, it seems very clear that nonbelief without repentance is worse (in God's eyes) than rape and repentance. And that is pretty disturbing.

I sincerely do not bleive you are going to hell, if you are searching for Truth in charity, I really believe you will be saved in the end.

You keep talking about 'searching for Truth in charity' as something God will accept. Do you mean 'charity' as doing good works? Does 'Truth' only refer to 'God's truth?' And does being saved in the end require belief in God, even if you have the 'charity' part covered?

Well a child likely doesnt believe in anything because he lacks the intellectual capacity. That is like saying a rock is an atheist. Also, babies do have some beliefs, for example, a child believes that his mother means to take care of him, and so he has faith in his mother, perhaps babies believe in God. Children are very apt to believe, and will believe in God without any explanation as if it is natural to believe in God.

Beliefs are shaped by experience. If that child is neglected, he will not learn to trust his mother. And if he is never exposed to the idea of God, he will never believe in God.

[dqualk]

Again, it seems very clear that nonbelief without repentance is worse (in God's eyes) than rape and repentance. And that is pretty disturbing.

This is actually not true. Rape is far worse than non-belief under certain conditions. The thing that is unforgivable about both is a hate for God. In Christianity anytime we commit a mortal sin we actually sin twice, we sin against God, that is we blaspheme love and meaning and all good things, and we do the particular sin like say not believe in God, or something even as heinous as molestation. All sins are forgivable excpet blaspheming God's love, which is returning God's loving-kindness with hate. So if you don't believe in God becasu you are legitimately seeking truth in charity, and that is the honest conclusion that you have come to, then I believe you will go to heaven, because Christ tells us that He who seeks shall find, and if you are seeking in charity, then you will find that Christ is Truth, so I'm not worried about you. So disbelief is not worse than molestation. I'll make a hierachy of sins between those three, blashpemy (unforgivable), molestation (abomination and disgusting), disbelief.

You keep talking about 'searching for Truth in charity' as something God will accept. Do you mean 'charity' as doing good works? Does 'Truth' only refer to 'God's truth?' And does being saved in the end require belief in God, even if you have the 'charity' part covered?

I mean charity as a disposition of the will. God is Truth. All truth flows form His Truth, in my belief, so if it is true then it is of God.

Well in the end if you sought Truth with a charitable disposition I believe you sought Christ in a different way. If you are only pretending to seek truth or if you seek truth hatefully then I believe that you are not seeking truth at all, that is what I mean by you need a charitable disposition as a opposed to a hateful disposition. If Christ is Truth (in my view He is), and you are seeking Truth, then you are seeking Christ so you are a Christian (from my point of view). And in the end when Christ reveals Himself to us in a more complete way you will believe, and if you choose not to beleive despite your knowledge that God exists, then that is blaspheming God. I hope that makes sense.

Beliefs are shaped by experience. If that child is neglected, he will not learn to trust his mother. And if he is never exposed to the idea of God, he will never believe in God.

So are you saying that someone experience God in the past and that is why people believe it today .

If the child is never exposed to God he may come up with God on his own, like our ancestors must have done, unless God revealed Himself to them, which I believe He reveals Himself to us to this day.

[OnlyNatural]

Rape is far worse than non-belief under certain conditions. The thing that is unforgivable about both is a hate for God.

Non-belief doesn’t involve hatred for God; you can’t hate something that doesn’t exist.

In Christianity anytime we commit a mortal sin we actually sin twice, we sin against God, that is we blaspheme love and meaning and all good things, and we do the particular sin like say not believe in God, or something even as heinous as molestation. All sins are forgivable excpet blaspheming God's love, which is returning God's loving-kindness with hate.

Again, the ‘sin’ of not-believing in God can’t involve hating him, if you don’t believe in him. Blasphemy is not a crime to an atheist, because there is no victim.

So if you don't believe in God becasu you are legitimately seeking truth in charity, and that is the honest conclusion that you have come to, then I believe you will go to heaven, because Christ tells us that He who seeks shall find, and if you are seeking in charity, then you will find that Christ is Truth, so I'm not worried about you.

I mean charity as a disposition of the will. God is Truth. All truth flows form His Truth, in my belief, so if it is true then it is of God.

Well in the end if you sought Truth with a charitable disposition I believe you sought Christ in a different way. If you are only pretending to seek truth or if you seek truth hatefully then I believe that you are not seeking truth at all, that is what I mean by you need a charitable disposition as a opposed to a hateful disposition. If Christ is Truth (in my view He is), and you are seeking Truth, then you are seeking Christ so you are a Christian (from my point of view).

So even a nonbeliever seeking truth is going to end up finding Christ or God?

How does one ‘pretend’ to seek the truth, or seek it in a hateful way?

See, for me, truth is reality. I am seeking the best explanations for reality and real-life phenomena that are backed by the most comprehensive and non-contradictory evidence. And seeking truth in this way only moves me further away from the god hypothesis, not closer.

And in the end when Christ reveals Himself to us in a more complete way you will believe, and if you choose not to beleive despite your knowledge that God exists, then that is blaspheming God. I hope that makes sense.

No, sorry, that doesn't make much sense. If God revealed his existence in some objectively verifiable way, then I would have no choice but to believe. The evidence would be there in front of me, and in front of others too, and I’d be a fool to ignore it. That's like saying 'I have evidence and knowledge that the chair I'm sitting in exists, but I choose not to believe it.' That would be self-delusion, and I'm not a big fan of that.

So unless God/Christ unambiguously reveals himself one day (which I think is highly unlikely), I cannot go through life just having blind faith in his existence.

So are you saying that someone experience God in the past and that is why people believe it today .

If the child is never exposed to God he may come up with God on his own, like our ancestors must have done, unless God revealed Himself to them, which I believe He reveals Himself to us to this day.

I’m not talking about someone ‘experiencing’ God. I mean hearing about God, from parents, society, etc.

I do find the origins of religion quite interesting. Some human ancestors had to have come up with the idea of a god at some point, most likely to explain natural phenomena that they didn’t understand. The concept of ‘god’ was then passed down through the generations, and entire mythologies evolved around it.

[KichigaiNeko]

BAD TIMES

If you receive an e-mail with a subject line of “Badtimes”, delete it immediately without reading it.

This is the most dangerous e-mail virus yet.
It will rewrite your hard drive.
Not only that, but it will scramble any disks that are even close to your computer.
It will recalibrate your refrigerator’s coolness settings so all your ice-cream will melt and all your milk will curdle
It will demagnetise the strips on all your credit cards, reprogramming your ATM access codes, screw up the tracking on your DVD player and use subspace field harmonics to scratch any CDs you try to play.
It will give your ex-boy/girlfriend your new mobile number.
It will mix anti freeze into your fish tank.
It will drink all your beer and leave its dirty socks on the coffee table when there’s company coming over.
It will hide your car keys when you are late for work and interface with your car radio so that you hear only static whilst stuck in traffic.
Badtimes will make you fall in love with a hardened criminal.
It will give you nightmares about circus midgets.
It will replace your shampoo with Nair™ and your Nair™ with Regaine™, all the while dating your current boy/girlfriend behind your back and billing their dates and rendezvous to your Visa™ Card.
Badtimes will give you Dutch Elm disease.
It will leave the toilet seat up and leave the hairdryer plugged in dangerously close proximity to a full bath tub.
It will remove the forbidden tags from your mattresses and pillows, and refill your skim milk with whole.
It is insidious and subtle.
It is dangerous and terrifying to behold.
It is also a rather interesting shade of octerine.
These are just a few of the signs.
Be afraid....be very, very afraid.


Makes about as much fookin sense

[thesummerqueen]

Just saying, the lollipop is just as good if you don't cross your legs.

Oh, and - crossing the legs makes the skirt ride up. Just sayin'.