Right-wing fundamentalist's dilemma

[Guest Guest]

That's not my recollection, but it's on video recording if anyone really thinks it's that important. More important, since you're obviously one of his supporters, and now know that I've tried to discuss this with him, why don't you tell him that the door is still open? We still have a divided community, which he should be acting with us to heal. Isn't it interesting that you completely ignore the most important facts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What I do find is the facts that you can send your daughter to study abroad in Barcelona and you can take you and your family to Europe for a month with the money you made off of the Kearny School System. And then profess to the public here how much you need to pay expenses. Your door was never open, just wedged shut with stacks of money acquired by badmouthing the town you live in. You are an embarrassement . I know a lot of families in this town who cannot afford to even go away to the Jersey shore. What important facts did I miss?

[Strife767]

Yes Paul, an omnipotent god would have the power to prevent a person from murdering and experiencing Hell, if He chose to do so.  However, I have to believe that God wants man to reciprocate His love, not because they are progarammed to, but because they legitimately have chosen to appreciate Him and Love Him in return. Anything less would not be real.  God could not show real love and man could not return proper appreciation for that love.

So if you have a child that doesn't 'love you back,' you're justified in making them suffer forever for it? I'm glad I'm not your kid--you've got some perverted definition of love.

In addittion, the Scriptures also say that an attribute of God is Goodness.

And of course, you're gullible enough to buy it, despite all of the horrific acts attributed to God in those very same scriptures. This same God is enough of a hypocrite to drown (read: kill) everyone pursuing Moses across the Red Sea, and then have the gall to hand down commandments, one of which is "Thou shalt not kill." Yeah, way to lead by example.

Paul, could God be considered legitimately good if He created pre-programmed robots?

You believe he created angels, right? And angels don't have free will, do they? If they don't, then they are an example of "pre-programmed robots" which by your own logic means that God isn't "legitimately good," because he created them.

And if you argue that angels DO have free will, then in one fell swoop you've denied one of the main tenets of Christianity--that humans are God's greatest creation because he gave us the UNIQUE gift of free will.

So either by your own logic, either God is not "legitimately good," or humans aren't special/unique in God's eyes. Choose.

By the way Paul, sin is punished in Hell, not just murder:

Finite sin cannot be justly punished by infinite torment. Our "sins" end, so why doesn't Hell? The only rational explanation for Hell would be that God is sadistic.

The wonderful thing about God is that He redeems sinners that will come to Him without exception:

The Apostle Peter denied Christ three times and God forgave him.

King David committed adultery and murder and God forgave him.

But live a good, selfless life without having ever even heard of the Christian God and you're tormented for eternity.

Your god is despicable.

God loves you Paul.  There is an anonymous proverb that reads like this:  "If you love something, set it free.  If it returns its yours, but if it doesn't, it never was."

In a sense, this is how it is with God.

No it isn't--by that analogy, we're 'set free' for only a few minutes, and if we happen to do something he doesn't approve of, we're dragged back and punished eternally. I don't know what perversion of love allows you to think a loving god would do this--I'm just glad I know better.

[Strife767]

What I do find is the facts that you can send your daughter to study abroad in Barcelona and you can take you and your family to Europe for a month with the money you made off of the Kearny School System.

So, how much money was that, exactly? And cite your source.

[Guest Guest]

I love all of these people that claim to know the mind of god.

This little statement has generated 3 response from Paul.

Who is more delusional?

1. The fundie and his blind faith.

or

2. Paul, the guy that thinks he has got it all figured out.

[Guest Guest]

I'm reading an excellent book by Sankara Saranam called God Without Religion. In the preface he writes: ". . . I came to realize God as a spiritually expansive substance extending throughout the cosmos --- a much more universal presence than that proposed by many organized religions. God, I found, was everything, and being godlike meant identifying with, and not merely tolerating, more and more people. Understanding that the idea of God signified absolute unity, I concluded that anyone advocating unquestioning loyalty to a restrictive group such as a faith, ethnicity or nation was in fact promoting the fall of humanity by advancing its division."

That is very well put and is appropriately filed under "by their fruits shall you know them."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why don't you try reading the Bible? You might actually learn something instead of spewing the dieria you profess here.

[Bryan]

This is a perfect example of what is wrong with religious fundamentalism. Values are their own justification: Things like honesty and compassion, pretty much all the values on Paul's list. We don't need an explanation to know why they are good. Living provides all the explanation we need.

And you have no clue that your position fallaciously begs the question, do you?

It's not a matter of religious fundamentalism, "Guest," it's a matter of logic. The position you describe takes its own truth for granted--probably the sort of thing you would criticize in a fundamentalist. But for you, it's apparently okay.

Bryan not only ignores all of this, he turns it inside out, and not only that, he turns God from all that is good into something profoundly evil.

"Guest" continues to fail to reach the realization that he is fallaciously begging the question.

You can't say God is Love, and then believe in a god who is without Love, or who tortures for no purpose.

1) It begs the question (fallaciously, again) to claim that the god I defend is without love.

2) Above, "Guest" admitted that values are their own justification, which is precisely the point I made to Paul earlier. Forgetting his own statement, "Guest" proceeds to assert that hell is without justification.

I'll remind "Guest" that a just hell is its own justification.

Considering God's infinite power, it is hard to imagine him torturing at all.

Infinite power has nothing to do with it, AFAICS. If the Marquis de Sade had infinite power would you make the same argument?

This is the type of argument these people accept while ridiculing the opposition.

It's amazing.

And you couldn't devise a less effective punishment than eternal torment with no hope of redemption. The very fact that there is no hope of redemption defeats the purpose of the punishment.

Guest makes this argument after admitting that values require no outside justification. The value is justice.

Fundamentalists like Bryan tell us that if they understand the Bible in a certain way, anything not only can be justified, but is absolutely necessary and if you don't agree, then you're stupid. I don't think so. I don't think the fundamentalists know any more about God than the rest of us, and there are plenty of reasons to think they know less - a lot less.

With that paragraph, it seems that "Guest" would join Paul in attempting to sweep under the rug the problem of achieving the metaphysical standing to judge hell as unjust.

They have no conception that by the rules of logic they have no leg to stand on, so they engage in various fallacies of distraction (in this case outrage and ridicule--with a strong hint of straw man in there, too).

To illustrate the point, imagine you are fifteen years old. You have grown up in a stable, loving home with two loving parents. One night at 3 a.m. you are suddenly awakened in your bed by a pair of rough hands. They belong to a man, but you cannot see who the man is. The man overpowers, then abuses and tortures you over the course of several hours. Is the man (a) your loving father or ( an intruder and a criminal? The only way this is your loving father is if he has suddenly gone mad. Completely, totally, tragically mad. Since God can't go mad, when Bryan describes him like this, we know he isn't accurately describing God. You know your father. Your father is loving and kind and generous and good. This is not your father.

This is a truth you know from within. You can't prove it from without, and you have no need to do that. And if you don't understand it, no one can teach it to you.

... and there's no direct parallel to the arguments of religious fundamentalists, either.

What overpowering irony. We get the same type of justification that a religious fundamentalist might attempt--but not the slightest hint of a blush when the same writer jeers at religious fundamentalism.

How ironic that this simple observation is so devastating against the fundamentalist's way of thinking. The person who thinks he knows "revealed truth" is completely blind to the greatest revealed truths of all. The person who thinks he knows all knows the least.

Rigid fundamentalists like Bryan think they are at God's right hand, but in fact they don't the slightest clue where God is or what he is like. But then, that isn't surprising when you think about it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As if this post does anything other than mimic the worst reasoning of a fundamentalist?

[Guest Paul]

Why not post the letter Paul?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because it wouldn't matter to you anyway. You'd find another excuse not to believe it.

If you're interested in its contents, ask David.

[Guest Paul]

In addition, you keep ignoring the fact that an omnipotent god would have the power to prevent a person from murdering someone without tormenting forever in a fiery hell.

Yes Paul, an omnipotent god would have the power to prevent a person from murdering and experiencing Hell, if He chose to do so. However, I have to believe that God wants man to reciprocate His love, not because they are progarammed to, but because they legitimately have chosen to appreciate Him and Love Him in return. Anything less would not be real. God could not show real love and man could not return proper appreciation for that love.

In addittion, the Scriptures also say that an attribute of God is Goodness. Paul, could God be considered legitimately good if He created pre-programmed robots?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You never address the point. You don't come close to addressing the point. There is no denial of free will in making the facts clear. With all the competing religions on earth, and no evidence that any god exists, the facts are not clear. If there was or is a god, he wouldn't have to create robots to make his existence obvious to all, which it is not. Are you willing and capable of framing the argument on that basis?

[Guest Paul]

So what you're saying is that you're so dopey that you didn't realize that taking smoke into your lungs could damage your health? You honestly think that because some idiot ignored common sense and died from smoking his family is entitled to hundreds of millions of dollars.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who should get the money is another issue. The point is that the conduct of the cigarette companies merited punishment. Why do you right wingers ALWAYS change the subject?

[Guest Paul]

What I do find is the facts that you can send your daughter to study abroad in Barcelona and you can take you and your family to Europe for a month with the money you made off of the Kearny School System.  And then profess to the public here how much you need to pay expenses.  Your door was never open, just wedged shut with stacks of money acquired by badmouthing the town you live in.  You are an embarrassement . I know a lot of families in this town who cannot afford to even go away to the Jersey shore.  What important facts did I miss?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You people are completely disgusting bringing my daughter into this. This is despicable. We sent her to Barcelona as part of her studies in college, and we paid for it out of money I earned in my law practice. You should be ashamed of yourself raising this.

I have no idea where you're getting the idea that our family is going to Europe. We are not.

Our expenses had nothing to do with need. Not a penny is going into our pockets.

It seems as though you missed most of the facts, and those you got you misinterpreted.

[Guest Paul]

Why don't you try reading the Bible? You might actually learn something instead of spewing the dieria you profess here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have read the Bible, several times. Why don't you try reading Saranam's book? Maybe you'd learn something and recognize the merit in what I and others are saying.

[Guest Paul]

And you have no clue that your position fallaciously begs the question, do you?

It's not a matter of religious fundamentalism, "Guest," it's a matter of logic.  The position you describe takes its own truth for granted--probably the sort of thing you would criticize in a fundamentalist.  But for you, it's apparently okay.

"Guest" continues to fail to reach the realization that he is fallaciously begging the question.

1)  It begs the question (fallaciously, again) to claim that the god I defend is without love.

2)  Above, "Guest" admitted that values are their own justification, which is precisely the point I made to Paul earlier.  Forgetting his own statement, "Guest" proceeds to assert that hell is without justification.

I'll remind "Guest" that a just hell is its own justification.

Infinite power has nothing to do with it, AFAICS.  If the Marquis de Sade had infinite power would you make the same argument?

This is the type of argument these people accept while ridiculing the opposition.

It's amazing.

Guest makes this argument after admitting that values require no outside justification.  The value is justice.

With that paragraph, it seems that "Guest" would join Paul in attempting to sweep under the rug the problem of achieving the metaphysical standing to judge hell as unjust.

They have no conception that by the rules of logic they have no leg to stand on, so they engage in various fallacies of distraction (in this case outrage and ridicule--with a strong hint of straw man in there, too).

... and there's no direct parallel to the arguments of religious fundamentalists, either.

What overpowering irony.  We get the same type of justification that a religious fundamentalist might attempt--but not the slightest hint of a blush when the same writer jeers at religious fundamentalism.

As if this post does anything other than mimic the worst reasoning of a fundamentalist?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That post doesn't mimic fundamentalist "reasoning." Fundamentalism asserts that a collection of books called the Bible is intrinsically true. The Bible is not human experience, and therefore is not revealed as true from within. Human experience is intrinsically true, and revealed so from within, because that is what it is: our inner life experience. There's no question-begging in that observation at all. It's the fact.

[Guest Paul]

It is important, because it speaks to your integrity.  By the way, it was on video, it was on CBS news and I saw Mr. P reaching out to you.  Your back was to the wall. He very obviously came to you.

About reaching out to the community, is that what you're doing on this forum?  I would suggest abandoning your hubris and sarcasm.  These things tend to prevent "healing."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My intention was to reach out to Mr. Paszkiewicz when I saw him coming down the stairs, and that is what I did. If he also had a similar intent, then good for him. Why do you find it necessary to attack everything I do?

Did you speak to him about this at church yesterday? When can I expect to hear from him?

[Strife767]

I love all of these people that claim to know the mind of god.

This little statement has generated 3 response from Paul.

Who is more delusional?

1. The fundie and his blind faith.

or

2.  Paul, the guy that thinks he has got it all figured out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1, obviously. All Paul is doing is scratching the surface of the paradoxes and contradictions that lie in the fundamentalist's belief system. It's not about having "it all figured out," unless merely the fact that Christian fundamentalism is fundamentally (pun intended ) flawed is what you mean by "it all."

[Strife767]

Why don't you try reading the Bible? You might actually learn something instead of spewing the dieria you profess here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How do you know he hasn't?

Tell me, guest, what were Jesus's last words?

[Guest Guest]

Why do you find it necessary to attack everything I do?

Because you apparently deliberately misrepresented the actual event. Thank goodness for the CBS news coverage.

[Guest Guest]

(1) And you have no clue that your position fallaciously begs the question, do you?

It's not a matter of religious fundamentalism, "Guest," it's a matter of logic.  The position you describe takes its own truth for granted--probably the sort of thing you would criticize in a fundamentalist.  But for you, it's apparently okay.

"Guest" continues to fail to reach the realization that he is fallaciously begging the question.

(2)

1)  It begs the question (fallaciously, again) to claim that the god I defend is without love.

2)  Above, "Guest" admitted that values are their own justification, which is precisely the point I made to Paul earlier.  Forgetting his own statement, "Guest" proceeds to assert that hell is without justification.

I'll remind "Guest" that a just hell is its own justification.

Infinite power has nothing to do with it, AFAICS.  If the Marquis de Sade had infinite power would you make the same argument?

(3) This is the type of argument these people accept while ridiculing the opposition.

It's amazing.

(4) Guest makes this argument after admitting that values require no outside justification.  The value is justice.

(5) With that paragraph, it seems that "Guest" would join Paul in attempting to sweep under the rug the problem of achieving the metaphysical standing to judge hell as unjust.

They have no conception that by the rules of logic they have no leg to stand on, so they engage in various fallacies of distraction (in this case outrage and ridicule--with a strong hint of straw man in there, too).

... and there's no direct parallel to the arguments of religious fundamentalists, either.

(6) What overpowering irony.  We get the same type of justification that a religious fundamentalist might attempt--but not the slightest hint of a blush when the same writer jeers at religious fundamentalism.

As if this post does anything other than mimic the worst reasoning of a fundamentalist?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(1) It’s only a matter of logic if you ignore the subject matter under discussion. We’re discussing values. Values require one or more valuers. We are the only known entities in the universe with values this sophisticated. You can assert the existence of God if you want to, but that’s all you’re doing: you’re making an assertion, a claim without evidence. By contrast, our values are real and palpable to each of us, as is the life experience that supports and grounds them.

(2) If your god allows eternal torment in hell, that is not love. So even if this god of yours exhibits what appears to be love at other times, to other people and/or in other ways, he/she/it departs from it here.

(3) What’s amazing is your unwillingness to hear what you’re being told. An infinitely powerful god wouldn’t torture with an eternity in hell because he would have better choices. It’s assumed that this god is good. You cannot compare that to de Sade, who did not exhibit the quality of goodness.

(4) You’re missing the point. Justice is a composite of values. Unless you fill it with more specific values, it is empty and meaningless. That is why “justice” can mean anything from black Americans having the same right to a seat on the bus as white Americans, all the way to terrorists flying airplanes into occupied buildings. What distinguishes these two concepts of justice, and all the others in between: the values that give justice its shape and meaning.

(5) The standing to judge hell as unjust is that it serves no purpose, but only inflicts gratuitous (that is, purposeless) suffering. You can’t just assert that justice is whatever you say it is. Again, you’re emptying out justice, which does a disservice to everyone that idea touches.

(6) Just because an argument uses language that religious fundamentalists use does not mean that it does not make an excellent point. The irony points the other way. Christianity is onto something wonderful and important, but the fundamentalists don’t get it. I’ll repost the statement:

“To illustrate the point, imagine you are fifteen years old. You have grown up in a stable, loving home with two loving parents. One night at 3 a.m. you are suddenly awakened in your bed by a pair of rough hands. They belong to a man, but you cannot see who the man is. The man overpowers, then abuses and tortures you over the course of several hours. Is the man (a) your loving father or ( an intruder and a criminal? The only way this is your loving father is if he has suddenly gone mad. Completely, totally, tragically mad. Since God can't go mad, when Bryan describes him like this, we know he isn't accurately describing God. You know your father. Your father is loving and kind and generous and good. This is not your father.

”This is a truth you know from within. You can't prove it from without, and you have no need to do that. And if you don't understand it, no one can teach it to you.”

The fact that you don’t respond on the merits says a lot.

[Guest Guest]

Who should get the money is another issue. The point is that the conduct of the cigarette companies merited punishment. Why do you right wingers ALWAYS change the subject?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One of the major problems in this country is that people don't seem to think they are responsible for their own behavior. Whenever anything goes wrong they look for someone to blame. Lawyers feed off of this.

I'll let my family know that if I put a gun in my mouth and pull the trigger you'll represent them against the gun manufacturer. So much for integrity.

[Guest Guest]

Why do you find it necessary to attack everything I do?

Because you apparently deliberately misrepresented the actual event. Thank goodness for the CBS news coverage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The video shows both men leaning in toward each other. Obviously the handshake was voluntary on both parts. You're obviously blinded by your anger, and obviously have an axe to grind to support Paszkiewicz, so why should anyone accept your interpretation of it?

The other point here is that you're making a mountain out of a molehill. The bigger point is that an overture was made to do something even more significant, namely, sit down together and work together to heal the community. You completely ignore the bigger point. Why?

[Guest Guest]

I'll remind "Guest" that a just hell is its own justification.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why is it its own justification, and what is just about it? How is it just? What makes it just? What is justice? You deny that it has any necessary relation to values, but that is the kind of thinking that helps terrorists rationalize their actions on the grounds that they are just. Why aren't values necessary to justice, and in particular universal values based on shared experience: things like love and wisdom and compassion? Your so-called answer to that is not an answer, just a supposition that you make and insist that the rest of us make on "penalty" of you're calling us stupid. I think we can handle that. So far all we have is your say-so.

[Guest Guest]

How do you know he hasn't?

Tell me, guest, what were Jesus's last words?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"YES I AM COMING SOON" Rev 22:20

[Guest Paul]

One of the major problems in this country is that people don't seem to think they are responsible for their own behavior.  Whenever anything goes wrong they look for someone to blame.  Lawyers feed off of this.

I'll let my family know that if I put a gun in my mouth and pull the trigger you'll represent them against the gun manufacturer.  So much for integrity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

See, here's another perfect example of making up a story and imagining that it reprsents reality. You may tell your family what you wish, but if you tell them that story, you'll just upset them. And if you kill yourself with a gun, and your family contacts me, I won't take the case.

So you just wrote and published something about me that isn't true, and you did it without the slightest reason to believe it was true. Where is your integrity? Unlike you, I have good reason to ask the question. Do you have an answer? If not, and since I know you don't, an apology would be appropriate.

You have a good point about responsibility in our society, but doesn't it also apply to corporations that manufacture harmful products? Why is it that so many people put the hammer down on the average person without hesitation, but are so forgiving of the worst abuses by corporations? Does it have something to do with not respecting people of your own class? Not respecting the average person? Not wanting someone at your level to get a dime that you didn't get --- but it's OK for the wealthy to make a boodle because if you ever get there, that's what you want? Why the double standard?

And why is it so important for you to have a villain? It's OK, you don't have to answer that one, but you really should apologize to me.

[Guest Paul]

Above, "Guest" admitted that values are their own justification, which is precisely the point I made to Paul earlier.  Forgetting his own statement, "Guest" proceeds to assert that hell is without justification.

I'll remind "Guest" that a just hell is its own justification.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bryan can remind us of his claim, but he can't "remind" us of what isn't true. To be its own justification, something must be (1) intrinsic to someone and (2) good.

Values like those on the long list posted some days ago are both. Hell is neither.

For example, a great university renders a valuable service, but it is not its own justification. It is justified by the knowledge it imparts.

Bryan insists that hell is just because God says so. In saying that, he manages to render the idea of justice not only meaningless, but perverse. Atheists are often accused of believing that the universe is valueless, without meaning or purpose. Some people call this nihilism. In other words, the universe does not care about us, so it's better to believe in God. Bryan believes in "God," or at least he thinks he does, but he manages to paint an even bleaker picture of a universe controlled by a god who will go out of his way to make sure we suffer the most exquisite possible pain forever because we happen to guess the wrong religion --- essentially, we don't call God by what he deems to be his proper name. In Bryan's universe, God cares about us, but not about our happiness. In Bryan's eyes we are just God's little servants, which he may dispose of as he sees fit and if we have messed up he wants to make sure we suffer --- forever and in the worst way imaginable. If you look at God as all-power, maybe you can think that, but you can't think it if you also look at God as Love. Are none of you fundamentalists parents? Is that how you think of your own children? I feel sorry for them if you do. You have to get Love out of the picture to think like that, and once you do that, why "believe" in something that leads you there? Obviously that road is taking you in the wrong direction, so why stay on it? Some people consider atheism a bleak choice, but what Bryan and other fundamentalists propose is far worse.

This unfortunate way of thinking has practical and deleterious effects on life. People who can imagine a god who will go out of his way to torment us forever, and can so pervert their concept of justice to put that sort of thing in it, have created the conditions in their own minds for insensitivity to others. So it is no surprise that the terrorists who attacked the United States on 9/11, and who continue to threaten the world, are also religious fundamentalists.

And you wonder why I think this is important.

[Guest Red-Letter Edition]

How do you know he hasn't?

Tell me, guest, what were Jesus's last words?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Forgive me for responding for the guest Strife, but His last words in the Bible were:

"Yes, I am coming soon." Revelation 22:20

Unless you mean His last words on the cross, in that case they would be:

"It is finished." John 19:30

Or His last words before His ascension into Heaven:

"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." Acts 1:8

Its nice to see you have some interest in the Bible Strife.

[Guest Paul]

Why is it its own justification, and what is just about it? How is it just? What makes it just? What is justice? You deny that it has any necessary relation to values, but that is the kind of thinking that helps terrorists rationalize their actions on the grounds that they are just. Why aren't values necessary to justice, and in particular universal values based on shared experience: things like love and wisdom and compassion? Your so-called answer to that is not an answer, just a supposition that you make and insist that the rest of us make on "penalty" of you're calling us stupid. I think we can handle that. So far all we have is your say-so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here are links to a video from a baptist church. If this doesn't chill you to the bone, something is very wrong. Pay particular attention to the ending. Then please, think about what you're doing to your kids and the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQjLLPoxbKk

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1326,n,n