OK, so I guess I should start a new thread about Kant – but let me get this straight:
So if I belief everyone should die, and then kill everyone, and then kill myself, that is perfectly moral acording to Kant? That meets all his conditions.
Moomph.
My buddy Friend would no doubt cite Scripture verses at you; after all, they are vibrantly alive for him. I have not been close enough to you for long enough to get any idea of what you need and want spiritually – a bunch of online posts, a few minutes of inane conversation and a hug at Barton Hayes – what does that tell me of what makes Sqrl the particular person he is?
If you were willing to sit still for me talking religion, I think I’d start by acknowledging that there is a touch of the holy in everything. But this, while true, does not touch the greater question: what does this world in which you see “spirits in stones and life in every bubbling rill” owe its allegiance to? What spirit unifies all these multifold voices? And I would lead you from this to a single Spirit who made and shaped this world for your pleasure, and loves it as much as you do, and loves you too. I would suggest that he has involved himself in the lives of men and women throughout history, for love of them, and that one of the most obvious sources of knowledge of him is in J.C. – when you peel off the interpretations his biographers give him. (They’re metaphor – and like any metaphor, if it works for you, use it; if not, don’t.) If you wanted to get into a discussion of other people you can see him through, I’d be willing, but in some cases I’d have to beg off through lack of information.
After all this I’d address the bum rap that J.C.'s followers have given him in your eyes. And that would be mostly dialogue, because I don’t know what specifically you think as regards this stuff. And I would lean over backwards to reiterate the point that I’ve made here in thread after thread – he’s not particularly interested in who you make love to, just in how (and how much) you love.
As I suspect you may have noticed, my “take” on your current beliefs would not be that they’re wrong so much as incomplete. And if you see an underlying spirit already, we can jump from there to what his characteristics are. (And yeah, I’d have no problem with using “her” although some in my place would.)
And all of this would presuppose either an invitation (such as you gave in the OP) or a closeness where I would know that you would feel comfortable talking about stuff religious with me. (Hijack: The reason Matt is supposed to feel problems related to his job, Phil, is that the guy who thinks he hired him is wondering where the heck he is! ;))
Forced conversions? The Boss frowns on them. He has this silly idea in his head about people using their free will. Of course most of his followers know better than he does… 
Anyway, since you asked, that’s what I’d do if invited to. Though it has a lot of witnessy stuff to it, I assume that it won’t offend you to hear my response, given that you asked.
Afterthoughts:
Uh…every generation generates the God it needs. I choose to think that what they do is draw one aspect from his infinitude of characteristics and focus on it. For Lib. and me, that aspect is his love. And it does seem to me, biased as I am, that Jesus tends to put a lot of emphasis on the subject. Some high-powered theologians throughout the ages have agreed with us. Including the man who loved him, and presumably knew his mind and heart better than anyone else. But Gaudere can give you chapter and verse on what’s wrong with the divine justice picture.
Alternatively, we can wait a few years until the Second Coming. I’ve promised to bring him and his SO around to Phil and Leigh Ann’s (even though they moved to DC instead of the Poconos). You’ll be right on the way there! 
Somehow I don’t think you are treating other people as an end in themselves if you ignore the fact that they do not wish to die. I have never found any moral rule that allows one to act universally morally without the use of one’s empathy and intelligence. Ya gotta use your brain; you have to think about what other people want, what would be best for all people, what would be best for that particular person, the likely consequences of your actions, the unlikely consequences of your actions, etc., etc.
I heartily agree with Zion. There is nothing profound, witty, or convincing I can say on a message board that will convince Sqrlcub, or assist him in changing his mind. At least, not in and of itself.
The only effective Christian “witness” to anyone, particularly someone who professes antipathy towards Christianity, is to be a friend, and lay down your life for that person. That really can’t happen in this enviornment, which is set up as a “masked” world, where debate and rancor seem to be a given. When we leave the SDMB, the rest of you all “go away,” and its not reality. Jesus commands us to love our neighbors as ourselves, and to love others as He loved us.
I also would pray for him. Only the power of the Holy Spirit can ever really convince anyone of the truth found in God’s Word, and in His Kingdom. Argument and debate has rarely produced converts.
And if he wanted to be left alone, or for me not to talk about God, I’d respect that. But I would continue to pray for him.
Not that he cares what I think, or that I pray. He’s made that pretty clear. He may even feel offended that I pray for him. But if believing in Jesus is a lot of hooey (as most here imply), then that shouldn’t really matter, eh?
And Libertarian is on to something. See Romans 2:12-16. I think his interpretation of "if you love . . . " is probably a bit broad in the context of this scripture, it does show that there is often an enlightenment of conscience that I think reveals that much of society is drawn to God, despite our fallen natures.
Zion hon…you have no idea how happy it made me to see you type this. hugs you hard Thank you.
(polishing his gun)
What does it mean then by “end in themselves.” I can certaintly treat people as a means. Meat for example. Or fertilizer. By that would only be a by product of them being corpses. Isn’t that an end?
But people have varying degrees of empathy and wisdom, etc. Are people who lack it to a suitable degree inherently immoral? And there is generally nothing you can say to someone to make people more empathic or more wise. I don’t think Kant’s conceptions of morality provide much of a basis for improving their lot if you can’t even prove the worst case.
Quit quoting the New Testament and refusing to believe the Old Testament. The religion is not just one chapter long. In the Old Testament regardless of the mythological basis the God portrayed there is pretty vengeful. It probably goes along with the morals of the time but when people start espousing the hate it either comes from Paul in the New Testament or the God of the Old Testament. (In the philosphy classes and religion classes I took in college taught by Jesuit nuns Job was never portrayed as a comedy but a serious concept for the origin of evil.)
Zion hit on a big point (Wow, something that I agree with ARG about.) when he said, “What will truly change people’s minds is when Christians start acting like…well, Christians. IRL that is.”
I can’t agree more. I have yet to meet an average person who behaves like what people say Christianity is (it is different in the actual readings unfortunately). The one person whom I can think of was a Jesuit nun who seemed genuinely happy in life and did her best to spread love and happiness. She was the only one that was really that way in the convent of the younger generation (ie under 75). I did a lot of volunteering in the nuns retirement center and I can assure you that though they were nice, they weren’t genuinely nice like she was.
I can’t tell you how offensive I find prosthelitizers (too lazy to check that spelling) to be. I find if one just knows that the person is trying to lead a harmonious and happy life that not much else is important. What is the need for conversion? You have your free will allow others that don’t worship the way you do (or don’t worship at all) to have their own free will.
It is not in my relgion’s tenants to convert people. Polycarp hit it on the nail there. (I think you’re GREAT, Poly. Thanks for actually giving me a serious answer.)
Since you were the only one as of yet to give a good detailed answer I think I should respond.
“…owe its allegiance to? What spirit unifies all these multifold voices?../”
The universe is alive and divine in the whole. We are all part of that and hence divine. For me there is no singular defining voice just one universal conscious/unconcious that works in unison. You are quite eloquent and it would be a pleasure to talk with you about religion. I don’t really have any desire to convert as you could well tell but the learning process from you is both non-offensive and enlightening. It is not confrontational as others on the board have managed to be when conversion theory comes up.
“…If you wanted to get into a discussion of other people you can see him through, I’d be willing, but in some cases I’d have to beg off through lack of information…”
I believe there are genuinely good people out there in the world but I don’t think they are necessarily Christian nor is being Christian a prerequisite of being a good person. Again, I wouldn’t really discuss that as I don’t see a big connection between Christianity and good people.
“After all this I’d address the bum rap that J.C.'s followers have given him in your eyes. And that would be mostly dialogue, because I don’t know what specifically you think as regards this stuff. And I would lean over backwards to reiterate the point that I’ve made here in thread after thread – he’s not particularly interested in who you make love to, just in how (and how much) you love.”
And this is why I respect you so much Polycarp. You drive the point home and don’t turn it into a slam fest. I do have to tell you that I think Jesus was just a man as we all are. That means he is divine, like we all are as well as everything else in the universe living, dead, inanimate, or any other form that we don’t know of yet.
“As I suspect you may have noticed, my “take” on your current beliefs would not be that they’re wrong so much as incomplete.”
I can see where my religion may seem incomplete to you and others with a long, ininterrupted history. The main point is I like the incompleteness of my beliefs because it maintains less dogma and less material that contradicts itself. I am pretty happy knowing that I can do as I want as long as I don’t hurt anyone. This also works within the laws of the area as hurting yourself is included. The other parts of my religion are basically aspects of being a good person. I help those in need. Sometimes the best help you can do is to do nothing. (Homeless people can get help in the shelters if they so choose. Giving them handouts only propogates their existence as they will stay out on the streets begging rather than trying to get out of the situation. Granted, some are unable to do that but they are usually the ones who don’t beg at least in DC. Helping them help themselves in the long run is far better than giving them the short term fix of a dollar or whatever spare change.)
“And if you see an underlying spirit already, we can jump from there to what his characteristics are.”
This is pretty good, but as I said earlier you would be hard pressed to have me identify any one aspect of anything as the sole source of divinity.
“(And yeah, I’d have no problem with using “her” although some in my place would.)”
I am not Wiccan and thus don’t place the Goddess ahead of the god…necessarily. Mind you I am not being argumentative I am just pointing out that it is a little different.
“And all of this would presuppose either an invitation (such as you gave in the OP) or a closeness where I would know that you would feel comfortable talking about stuff religious with me.”
You are one of the few Christian people here that I would feel comfortable talking to about religion Poly as you don’t try to force it at me or others. It may not end in a conversion on either of our parts but it would be enlightening nonetheless. I took Satan’s religion selector test the other day that was in IMHO. I wasn’t surprised at my outcome. I had always thought that if I wasn’t a Pagan I would be some type of Quaker. Many of their beliefs are similar to mine as they stand yet no one that I know calls them incomplete.
“Forced conversions? The Boss frowns on them. He has this silly idea in his head about people using their free will. Of course most of his followers know better than he does…”
That was another point of me starting this thread. Friend of God is trying to convert people. That in itself I and many others here find incredibly offensive. Even a talk with him on any mundane level is now laced with an insidious undertone of knowing that he is out there trying to convert me and others. That makes me equate him with the unwanted telemarketer calling when you are on the other line with a long lost relative who just escaped a POW camp in Cambodia and trying to get home that gets disconnected before you can click back because the telemarketer won’t shut-up and even after that they still call back. RRRRGGGGHHHH!!! Your ideology on this part is much more people friendly.
“Anyway, since you asked, that’s what I’d do if invited to. Though it has a lot of witnessy stuff to it, I assume that it won’t offend you to hear my response, given that you asked.”
Not offended but grateful that you actually gave me a serious response.
“Uh…every generation generates the God it needs. I choose to think that what they do is draw one aspect from his infinitude of characteristics and focus on it.”
Yes, I can agree with that. I would go one step further and say that every person generates the God or non-God that they need.
HUGS!
Sqrl
Thanks for the encouragement Mothra. Everyone should be
like me. The few basic ideals of pacifism and happiness never hurt.
I believe it means “treat people as if they are valuable in and of themselves, not just as things of no import that you can use to get what you want”. The fact that you desire people dead does not mean it is acceptable to override their desire to stay alive, barring extenuating circumstances.
You do the best you can with the resources at hand. Think of a man who is severly retarded. Let’s say he sees a woman drowning, but he doesn’t understand that he can save her, or he doesn’t understand that drowning is bad for the woman. Is he immoral if he doesn’t throw the woman a lifevest? I’d say no, he’s not doing anything immoral; he’s making the best moral choice he can with the information and capabilities he has. That’s all any of us can do. But I think empathy can be taught (what do you think I was doing when I explained to you why telling people they’re damned to Hell is not the best debate technique? ), and you have a moral obligation to try to gather as much information about a moral decision as you reasonably can (within your best judgement) and use your intelligence and empathy to the best of your abilities. For example, if I’m babysitting and I notice that the kid is looking well but I’m not sure if it’s serious or not, I have an obligation to try to determine if the kid needs help; call a doctor, monitor the child closely, etc. It would not be moral to say “well, I didn’t know if it was serious or not” but never try to determine if it really was.
Basically, with moral codes you have two choices: inflexible and flexible codes. Inflexible codes require no interpretation; for example, “do not kill”. However, the problem is that they sometimes allow or promote things we consider wrong; what about if someone’s going to kill your seven children and killing them is the only way to prevent it? Then there are flexible codes, like the Golden Rule or Kant’s categorical imperative, which generally allow choices that accord more closely with what we think is “moral” in diverse situations than the inflexible codes. However, they require more in the way of personal judgement, and rarely “work” if you assume the person making the choice is insane or stupid or mentally deficient. For example, take the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have done unto you. Well, I’d like a case of Guinness for my birthday, so should I give my 1-year-old cousin a case of Guinness for his birthday? Or the other phrasing of the GR: do unto others as they would wish done unto them. Now, if some psycho wants to kill my child, should I let him kill her because he wants me to do so? All the flexible moral codes require a certain degree of intelligence and knowledge and empathy to be executed properly, but they seem to be capapable of giving good moral guidance in any possible situation for the vast majority of people, whereas the inflexible moral codes often result in situations where following them seems abhorrent.
Eh, rephrase that last bit; “often” is too strong a term. Can result in situations where following them seems abhorrent, like obeying “do not kill” when someone is about to kill your kids.
I disagree, Zion. After all, when you were here before, you were quite different than you are now, I think everyone would admit, and I think this board had a lot to do with this change in you.
It’s a change for the better, I must add and I do hope you agree…
Yer pal,
Satan
[sub]I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, five days, 16 hours, 30 minutes and 7 seconds.
5107 cigarettes not smoked, saving $638.44.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 3 days, 17 hours, 35 minutes.[/sub]
Zion wrote (regarding examples of the J/C’s God for love):
This is simply not true, and someone who was raised Baptist/Catholic would know it. I could quote a thousand
Scriptures to you that clearly show God’s undying love, perhaps the most famous of which is John 3:16.
I’m sorry, but everytime I hear John 3:16, I don’t think of love, I think of GUILT TRIP. Rather than encourage love, God makes you feel guilty about his sacrifice and tries to force you love him. I apologize if I offend anyone with that interpretion, but that’s how I’ve always felt.
For the record, like SqrlCub, I’m a gay man who practices Paganism (specifically Wicca). I left Xianity when for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was the biblical proscriptions against homosexuality. Since then, none of the major branches of Xianity have given any indication that I ought to come back. Just about every branch has affirmed their opposition to homosexuality.
If the J/C god is about love, he surely has a strange definition of it. He will love me, but only on his terms and in his way. I have to change for him, he won’t accept me as I am.
That’s not love.
I say they should come to where you are, Freyr.
Once again, for the record:
“Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” — 1 John 4:8
That includes people who say, “I am Christian.”
Welcome to the boards Freyr. It is nice to see more gay people around. I actually am a Reconstructionist Druid. I have no interest in converting and feel that my beliefs are complete enough as they stand. If in the future I feel a need to update them my religion does not forbid me from looking upon multiple sources including Christianity for those teachings. Again, welcome.
HUGS!
Sqrl
Well, to make a long story short the guy at the gun store just gave me a long, perplexed, and yet suspicious look when I went in there and asked to buy six billion bullets. And when I asked if I could pay by check, I guess that pretty much nixed the deal.
That implies that somehow, magically, I know people do not want to be dead. How would I know they are not lying? 
Hey, if someone says they believe in a God that will damn them if they do not follow his will, and then they do not follow his will, or deny what his will is, I would think I have a moral imperitive to tell them that they, by their own belief system, will go to hell if they do not change their ways. If they are right in regard to the christian god, then I am in fact doing them a favor. Or they should just decide not to believe in this God and hence save themselves a spiritual conundrum. Zion makes this point also – Christians should act like Christians. I could tell them they won’t go to heaven, but that is the same thing. What exactly isn’t empathic about that?
But do people actually want to be moral? I mean, how important is that to them on a scale of one to ten? A three?
SqrlCub, for example wrote:
Which sounds good on the surface. But then you run the risk of living in a “first they came for the Jews, and I was not a Jew” mindset. You might “do good”, but what if you act as an enabler for others to do evil?
Inflexible codes are there, I would argue, for the benefit of those who cannot, on their own empathy and wisdom, work out for themselves what is right and wrong. Heaven and Hell are put out there, as an encouragement for those who can’t see what is so bad about doing wrong to begin with.
The flexible codes work if you can figure out what is right and wrong, otherwise, you correctly point out, you end up with spiritually imperfect people incorrectly living up to a code.
Well, the spirit of the codes is important in those situations. If you kill in self defense, and you had no better way in the heat of the moment to prevent your death, no jury is going to convict you. I wouldn’t say that adding an automatic flex in all situations would be moral – and I don’t think the ends justify the means.
Freyr – if God is attempting to “guilt” you into loving your neighbor, by encouraging you to life a moral life, and you choose not to – too bad. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Lust is wrong, sure. Lechery is wrong. Cheating on your partner is wrong, or attempting to steal someone elses partner is wrong. Farm animals are right out. As long as you love without lust – and I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt even though I’m straight and have no idea how your love works – you will be fine in this area. Go and sin no more
Jmullaney, “…Which sounds good on the surface. But then you run the risk of living in a “first they came for the Jews, and I was not a Jew” mindset. You might “do good”, but what if you act as an enabler for others to do evil?”
Actually it doesn’t because enabling one to harm another harms all divinity. The argument you make depends upon your point of view. I have played the role of an activist as have most gay people who are out of the closet. It isn’t necessarily a religious tenant but it is a logical extension of it assuming you believe that harming another is bad and all life is divine. It is something that is worthy of being protected regardless of the past actions. Granted that infringing life should not be allowed to run amok in a typical societal setting. Life imprisonment will do just fine.
HUGS!
Sqrl
You consider empathy magical? You have reason to doubt that these people are sincere when they say they do not wish to be dead?
I think you are going with the killer of all flexible moral systems: “What if I was a psychopathic idiot? Huh? Huh? What then?” In answer: if you genuinely believe people wish to be dead and it would result in a superior universal moral law, you are not behaving immorally (in your own mind) to kill them. You are also a stark raving loon, and it is perfectly moral for me to do what is necessary to prevent you from killing people who do not wish to be killed, up to and including blowing your malfunctioning gray matter out your earholes.
If someone truly and sincerely thought that you would go to Hell unless you drank the poisoned Koolaid, you would get annoyed if they told you this all the time, especially if they mocked you at the same time. Moral decisions also include taking into consideration that you may be wrong. And you were unempathetic becuase you apparently did not realize that your conversion tactics were actively driving people away.
You’ll have to ask them. I believe most people do wish to be good and loving; most fail somewhat due to selfishness or misinformation, but they try to be pretty decent. For me, it’s way up there in terms of importance, although I daresay you consider me quite immoral by your moral code.
I agree. If you can’t make decent moral choices with a flexible rule, better have some inflexible rules. If Joe is unable to empathize and understand that pulling people’s hair hurts them, better give him a “don’t pull hair” rule. Then Joe will stop pulling other people’s hair when he’s bored. However, if someone’s about to step off the curb and into the path of a speeding truck, and a good yank on that person’s braid would pull them to safety…sorry, you’re toast. But if Joe simply can’t comprehend enough to tell the difference between the two situations, best to use an inflexible code that will usually result in moral behavior, and hope for the best.
I’d say that the “spirit” of all moral codes is the Golden Rule or the Categorical Imperative (they’re essentially similar, IMHO, when used properly); they seem to be the root of all universal morals. They basically ask “what if everyone did action X in this situation, would that be good? What if someone did action X to me? How will this person feel when I do action X?” which is the same things I would consider if determining if “do not kill” should be obeyed in any particular instance.
Well, that’s because it’s been used as that. Remember that the Gospels were origionally supposed to be detailed informational handbooks for Christians, not tools for conversion. If you read that passage with a Christian mentality, it’s not a guilt trip, it’s a reassurance.
Sqrl…I probably need to do a “full disclosure” statement. Of course, as a follower of Jesus, I want to convert people. But it’s more a case of:
Needless to say, the typical evangelist is pushing the volcano for all it’s worth. And he has no respect for the fact that you like to camp out. But I do want to offer you the choice to go over to the resort, because I like you, and I think you’d enjoy it.
I found the Rule Gilding stuff very much a side issue to the basic discussion. Certainly I apply it as best I can, including in posting on religious (or any other) topics. My take on it would be, “Do unto others as you would want to have done unto you, if you were a reasonable adult in possession of all the available facts and standing in their shoes.” That eliminates all the inane special cases about “What if one of you is a masochist?” “What if one of you is a small child?” “What if one of you is dying of brain cancer?” and so on. As a wide assortment of people have posted, the Golden Rule is far from being anything exclusively Christian. It was probably being sententiously spouted off by tribal elders in Proto-Indo-European.
So, yes, I am guilty of wanting to convert you. But not because [put on best Jerry Falwell voice] “You’re a sinner in need of salvation, and Jee-zus will take away your sins – and besides, you’re one of (drop voice) those people (back to normal voice) – But God will save even you!” (Pardon me while I get the taste of that out of my mouth.)
There, that’s better. I found that I got much more fulfillment out of life as a happily adjusted Christian man. I want to share that sense of fulfillment with others. I respect that they have the same free choice to agree or disagree with what I have to say as I had, and that their needs and wants may be different from mine (in the case at hand, quite significantly so – dcnewsman is a heck of a terrific guy, but he does not inspire lustful thoughts in me! :)), and further, that I don’t have all the answers and the people I talk to are quite as fully human, with all the abilities and limitations, wisdom and folly, that I have.
But at rock bottom, I’m still one of those awful Christians who try to convert you.
:eek: Wow. That’s a dangerous belief – that is what leads to inquisitions and crusades and interfadas (sp?), etc. I mean, what if I’m misleading people and causing them to go to hell instead of heaven? That is much worse than killing them. Obviously, you’d have a duty to blow my brains out! Take that back!!
Sounds to me you are saying I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t. But, I take heart that a few people have shown up who agree with me on what the Gospels clearly teach. Having followed Jesus myself, if imperfectly, for a good stretch of time, I know what Jesus taught is not comparable to drinking poisoned kool-aid. Jesus himself had about as much luck with conversion himself – the difference is it is the stupid and gullible people who drink the kool-aid, but the wise person who follows Jesus.
I know that Christian morality is what empathy and wisdom ends up with when it is applied to Kant’s Categorical Imperative. Ignorance being bliss, having long ago taken the advice which even you yourself just gave me, I spent many years attempting to work it out for myself. I tried nearly every other religion and philosophy along the way, but everyone who is raised an atheist knows that Church thing is a good way to waste a nice Sunday morning and little more than that. I didn’t have an opportunity to be brainwashed into knowing what parts of the bible I was supposed to ignore or where Jesus was just kidding (hah, hah). So I read it with open eyes and had a deep affinity. It filled in the gaps.
I’m immoral, you are immoral. You are probably better than me. Way better off in the long run if you can’t see it when you do wrong and I have to struggle to re-blind myself. I’m fallen away. Even Hitler might have been a follower at one point. In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. Me: I’m just content with trying to help the truly faithful reach the answers they are seeking in this land of the blind – there is plenty of room in heaven.
Now, anyway, I’m thinking if we buy the bullets in bulk, we maybe can get a discount…
Hm, so preventing you from killing people who do not wish to be killed leads to inquisitions? It seems to me that the whole problem with the inquisitions was that no one tried to stop the people who started killing people who did not wish to die. I consider it more dangerous to allow a person to kill people who do not wish to be killed than to prevent this person from killing–even if I must use deadly force. The person who first tries to kill those who do not wish to be killed should be stopped. Try to kill my children and you better believe that I’d kill you if it was necessary to do so to prevent their deaths.
As for people going to Hell, well, thank the IPU I’m an atheist and can worry more about the well-being of living people than about any guess about what’s going to happen after we’ve shuffled off this mortal coil. It also makes me more fun at cocktail parties. 
(Although JC could probably win quite a few fans with that whole water into wine bit.)
::sigh:: I’m saying a little more politeness, humility and understanding would encourage more people to listen to you. Even if you are in possession of The Truth, poking people in the eye with it doesn’t much help your cause. But you’re a big boy and if you wish to witness like that, it’s your call. I’ve just honestly never seen anyone get so many people to refuse or threaten to refuse to debate with him in such a short time period. However, I’ve probably harped on this enough and I’ll likely leave you be (at least on this subject! ) from now on.
Yeeps, Joel. Nobody christened you Atlas; take that world off your shoulders!
Okay, two antithetical propositions: there is a God or there is not. If not, what you do makes little difference in the long run. Follow the Hobbesian imperative: do what makes you happy, including altruism if you feel better about yourself doing so. (This comes from someone once catching Hobbes giving alms to a beggar; he thought fast!) Or the Pagan rule of life “An do no wrong” (or words to that effect) might be quite applicable.
If the alternative – there is a God, I think you and I would both bet on the God of Christianity. Anyone wanting to put their theology in the ring is welcome to do so – this thread was, after all, started by a pagan.
He’s got it under control. The “Be perfect, as [my/your] Father in Heaven is perfect” is an ideal – a canon towards which to aspire, a limit to which you are to attempt to asymptotically climb the curve. It is not a freakin’ Law. Put away your Jesuitical theology and sit down and read a good modern translation of Romans, straight through. Paul has a point to make, and although he writes in a style that makes my most tortured analogies clear by comparison, he does get to a point. And if it won’t bother you, take a look at what Luther and Wesley had to say about it as well.
Then stop playing games with the Golden Rule as applied to the wishes of a mentally deficient sociopath with homicidal tendencies, carrying a bottle of poisoned Kool-Aid and an AK-47, entering a day care center, or whatever other tortured analogy happens to come to mind. See my previous post for a rephrasing that ought to suit everybody, or at least the start of one – somebody will probably find a modification of a clause that expresses my point better than I did, the membership of this board being what it is.
“When you have reached as high as you can, God reaches down the rest of the way.” -the late Rev. Elliott F. Metcalf, Rector of Trinity Episcopal Church, Watertown NY
When you get to know your typical Evangelical (fundamentalist) and he’s not defending himself from all the slings and arrows of outraged atheists ;), he too is talking about the God of love that I’ve been harping on here. His opinion on what He expects of His followers differs from both yours and mine, of course, but that’s secondary to the main point. (“We all talk a different language, talking in defense.”)
How say you?