# Why Don't Some Christians Accept That "Personal Experience of God" Differs? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 1, 2003, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-some-christians-accept-that-personal-experience-of-god-differs/192322 "2003-08-01T10:28:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-some-christians-accept-that-personal-experience-of-god-differs/192322/81 "2003-08-06T11:10:45Z")
Badchad ignores me. Therefore, this response is for the benefit of all those who are not he. > [@](#): > > YES IT DOES [sound exclusist]! Those who don’t trust Jesus don’t get there. That “only” word is pretty strong. What part of that is so difficult for you to understand? I think Poly understands it just fine. What you don’t understand is your own position, so let me explain it to you. You think of it this way… There was this guy named Jesus who claimed to be a mediator between God and man. Not only that, he claimed to be the ONLY mediator. He plays linebacker for God. You want to get to God, you gotta go through Jesus. It is no wonder you do not understand what Poly is saying to you. Poly thinks of it in quite a different way. Something like this… God manifested Himself in the person of this guy named Jesus. They are one and the same. God equals Jesus. Jesus equals God. God is Jesus. Jesus is God. When I choose one, I choose the other because one is not different from the other. There is no mediation. There is no linebacker. Like Vorlon, you do not understand that there is a difference between rejecting a description of Christ and rejecting Christ. I reject most descriptions that I hear of Him. If a bishop tells me that Christ is the one Who condemns gays, then I do not reject Christ; I reject the bishop’s description of Christ — because the bishop is a liar. If a preacher tells me that Christ is the guardian of the gates of Hell, waiting to spring up and shout, “Boo!” when sinners pass by, then I do not reject Christ; I reject the preacher’s description of Christ — because the preacher is a liar. And if you describe Christ as a linebacker Who blocks for God… ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-some-christians-accept-that-personal-experience-of-god-differs/192322/82 "2003-08-06T12:44:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*Did you forget the question? It was: “What if the standard [of justice] _is_ mercy?”. \*\* Read more carefully; I’ve already answered that question. I’ll answer again: Justice requires acting in accordance with a principle. Lower laws may be set aside in favor of higher laws while preserving justice, but by definition there are no higher standards than the highest. It cannot be set aside by any just being. Acting in accordance with the law is not merciful, although the law itself may be, but in in reference to itself (how could a law provide compassionate exception from itself?). Mercy would require that the highest standard be set aside, because acting in accordance with a law that mandates a mode of behavior is not merciful. If you rigidly adhere to the law, it’s not mercy, even if the law requires compassion and kindness. > [@](#): > > **You had drawn an arbitrary dichotomy between justice and mercy, possibly because you had seen it somewhere on the Internet much in the way people have seen the you-cannot-prove-a-negative nonsense.** I’m not going to pretend this is a respectable and worthy argument. > [@](#): > > \*\*Your premise that justice and mercy are mutually exclusive is unacceptable; therefore, whatever argument you might form from it is unsound. \*\* Intellectual integrity requires that we not reject arguments merely because we don’t like their conclusions. The argument is sound; you just don’t agree with its premises (and conclusion), but your dislike doesn’t make it unsound. And this dichotomy exists in the usage of the concepts of justice and mercy. You can try to redefine the concepts so that they give results you’d like better – history has shown us that you have no problem with giving words whatever meaning you like. > [@](#): > > \*\*It is you who declares that a religion that calls God “Vishnu” or “Thor” is incompatible with Christianity. It is you who can’t seem to grasp that whether a word sounds like “Kreist” or “Mgumbawa” has no bearing on what the word identifies. \*\* Straw man. Those religions aren’t incompatible with Christianity because they have different names for their major deities – they’re incompatible because their teachings contradict the teachings of Christianity. Christianity doesn’t change merely because its teachings are communicated in a different language. It’s the concepts that a religion teaches that define it, and neither Hinduism’s nor Astratu’s doctrine is compatible with Christianity. > [@](#): > > **I have not made the claim that “God is Justice”. Pulling rabbits out of hats does not advance your argument.** It’s a standard Christian claim, one of its most common ideas, in fact. Of course, you’re not a Christian. > [@](#): > > \*\*If the doctrine of Love does not appeal to a man, then it is a doctrine that he will reject. But if Love appeals to him, then he is a disciple of Christ, Who is Love. That is true whether he calls himself Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan, Atheist, or what have you. \*\* Gee, so _that’s_ the straight and narrow path that Christ mentioned. Oh yeah, it’s difficult to follow _that_ teaching – as long as you like the idea of Love (such a well-defined concept, BTW), you’re in like Flynn. :rolleyes: Someone, somewhere, save me from these amateur theologians… > [@](#): > > **Words without substance are mere hollow sounds. Declaring allegiance to Christ does not a Christian make. You seem to be among those who believe that He came down through the ages to rule an anthill for a day. You’ve divided men into teams, and you have stamped upon the forehead of each your personal judgment of his faith. You picture Jesus as favoring one team over the other as He leads cheers against the other teams. You do not know Who He is.** I’d use the rolling eyes smilie again, but I don’t want to dilute its meaning through overuse. This is just pathetic, **Lib**. > [@](#): > > \*\*You didn’t use a related word. You used the word “mercy”. You said that it was defined in a way in which it is in fact not defined. If you now wish to use a different word, state what it is. With all your meandering to save some vestige of validity for your argument, you have yet to show why justice and mercy are incompatible in se. \*\* No, that _is_ how it’s defined. ‘Clemency’ is often given as part of mercy’s definition – now, do you know what ‘clemency’ means? If you act in rigid accordance with a law, you can’t show vindictiveness or compassion, only that of the law itself. The law that describes what is ‘Right’ cannot be set aside justly, while mercy requires that laws be set aside. > [@](#): > > \*\*Love — the facilitation of goodness — _is_ His teaching. His disciples are conduits for Love. “By this will all men know you are my disciples: if you love one another.” — Jesus \*\* And how do we determine what is good so that we can determine whether someone loves? Ah – but you already have a definition for love, and you’re asserting that is what facilitates goodness. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-some-christians-accept-that-personal-experience-of-god-differs/192322/83 "2003-08-06T14:49:58Z")
Vorlon > [@](#): > > Read more carefully; I’ve already answered that question. I’ll answer again: No, you’ve answered (in various ways) some sort of question that you made up. The question (again) was “What if the standard of justice is mercy?”. And yet your “answer” depends, in part, on setting aside mercy, as in “Mercy would require that the highest standard be set aside”. I must say that setting aside the very standard itself in order to evaluate the standard is just… bizarre. > [@](#): > > I’m not going to pretend this is a respectable and worthy argument. And yet you press on. 😃 > [@](#): > > Intellectual integrity requires that we not reject arguments merely because we don’t like their conclusions. And yet you do it all the same. Because you would not accept these two premises — 1. If God exists, then He exists necessarily and 2. It is possible that God exists — you rejected Tisthammer’s argument. Somehow, your “intellectual integrity” allows you to reject premises but does not allow others to do so. When you reject a premise, you call it a refutation. When another man rejects a premise, you call it rejecting an argument because he doesn’t like its conclusion. That sort of equivocation is what led the board’s best debator, Spiritus Mundi, to abandon debate with you. > [@](#): > > The argument is sound; you just don’t agree with its premises (and conclusion), but your dislike doesn’t make it unsound. Let me explain to you what “sound” and “unsound” mean here. An argument is sound if it is both valid AND all its premises are true. Your argument is merely valid, but not sound. I cannot accept a premise, like yours, that is self-contradictory. If mercy _is_ the standard, you cannot set mercy aside in order to evaluate the standard. > [@](#): > > And this dichotomy exists in the usage of the concepts of justice and mercy. You can try to redefine the concepts so that they give results you’d like better – history has shown us that you have no problem with giving words whatever meaning you like. Redefine? You are the one who gave the wrong definition of “mercy”. To refresh your memory, you said that “mercy is defined as an exception to a rule”. I showed you where no such definition of mercy exists, and I asked you where you found it. You then hemmed and hawed about how “related words” imply your redefinition. > [@](#): > > Straw man. Those religions aren’t incompatible with Christianity because they have different names for their major deities – they’re incompatible because their teachings contradict the teachings of Christianity. Christianity doesn’t change merely because its teachings are communicated in a different language. It’s the concepts that a religion teaches that define it, and neither Hinduism’s nor Astratu’s doctrine is compatible with Christianity. I don’t think you know what a straw man is any more than you know what Hinduism is. The whole purpose of Hindu bhakti is to receive darshan from the majestic Gods and thereby alter the flow of pranas until you achieve a state of familiarity and love between the worshipper and the Deity. The Hindu moral journey is one of discovering love. See _Love Sex and Gender in the World Religions_, ISBN 1-85168-223-6: “Love is a primary way of understanding the religious life in Hinduism. The cultivation of love is valued as a transformative religious practice, moving human beings out of the predictability of dharma and the laws of karma and into dynamic relationship. The religious practitioner becomes bhakta or devotee, and ultimate reality is experienced as profoundly personal. Human modes of loving become both mirror and an emotional training ground for Divine-human love and provide a language to articulate the intensely personal relationship developing between devotee and Divine-parental love, friendship, the loyal and respectful love of servant for master, and the passionate union of lover and beloved.” > [@](#): > > It’s a standard Christian claim, one of its most common ideas, in fact. Of course, you’re not a Christian. Luckily, your opinion is worthless in that regard. > [@](#): > > Gee, so that’s the straight and narrow path that Christ mentioned. Oh yeah, it’s difficult to follow that teaching – as long as you like the idea of Love (such a well-defined concept, BTW), you’re in like Flynn… Someone, somewhere, save me from these amateur theologians… And what is that sort of rhetorical arm-flailing supposed to signify? > [@](#): > > I’d use the rolling eyes smilie again, but I don’t want to dilute its meaning through overuse. This is just pathetic, Lib. Well, neener neener. 😃 > [@](#): > > No, that is how it’s defined. ‘Clemency’ is often given as part of mercy’s definition – now, do you know what ‘clemency’ means? > > If you act in rigid accordance with a law, you can’t show vindictiveness or compassion, only that of the law itself. The law that describes what is ‘Right’ cannot be set aside justly, while mercy requires that laws be set aside. The reason you got hit in the head a lot when you played dodge ball as a kid is that you don’t dodge very well. One more time… When the law _is_ mercy, being merciful is not setting the law aside — it is, in fact, _enforcing_ it. > [@](#): > > And how do we determine what is good so that we can determine whether someone loves? Ah – but you already have a definition for love, and you’re asserting that is what facilitates goodness. What is good is what is valued by God. But that drives you crazy, right? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-some-christians-accept-that-personal-experience-of-god-differs/192322/84 "2003-08-06T15:33:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*No, you’ve answered (in various ways) some sort of question that you made up. > > The question (again) was “What if the standard of justice is mercy?”. And yet your “answer” depends, in part, on setting aside mercy, as in “Mercy would require that the highest standard be set aside”. \*\* Bingo, Einstein. > [@](#): > > \*\*I must say that setting aside the very standard itself in order to evaluate the standard is just… bizarre. \*\* That’s the point. How can you evaluate the highest possible standard? As always, your philosophical sophistication is at about the level I’ve come to expect from you, **Lib**. > [@](#): > > \*\*And yet you do it all the same. Because you would not accept these two premises — 1. If God exists, then He exists necessarily and 2. It is possible that God exists — you rejected Tisthammer’s argument. Somehow, your “intellectual integrity” allows you to reject premises but does not allow others to do so. \*\* Those premises can be broken down into more basic elements – you’re not using the word “god” to reference a defintion you’re presenting, you’re taking an established concept and asserting that it includes a certain concept. > [@](#): > > **When you reject a premise, you call it a refutation. When another man rejects a premise, you call it rejecting an argument because he doesn’t like its conclusion. That sort of equivocation is what led the board’s best debator, Spiritus Mundi, to abandon debate with you.** Some premises are unjustifiable, **Lib** , and there can be valid and invalid reasons for rejecting a premise. > [@](#): > > \*\*Let me explain to you what “sound” and “unsound” mean here. An argument is sound if it is both valid AND all its premises are true. Your argument is merely valid, but not sound. I cannot accept a premise, like yours, that is self-contradictory. If mercy _is_ the standard, you cannot set mercy aside in order to evaluate the standard. \*\* The premises aren’t self-contradictory – they illustrate a contradiction inherent in the idea of being both perfectly just and perfectly merciful. Because of the nature of mercy, mercy _cannot_ be an ultimate standard, because that would require that all lesser principles be set aside for a higher one while there _is_ no higher one. In discussions of divine mercy, the debators usually implicitly assume that the highest standard is Goodness, and that mercy involves setting aside principles that lead to something other than Goodness. It follows from this that God cannot deviate from Goodness, even if it required an infliction of suffering and pain, and that such an infliction would be utterly right. Being “merciful” (not inflicting suffering and pain) would require setting the principle that the infliction of suffering and pain should be avoided over the principle of Goodness, which contradicts the idea that Goodness is the highest principle. In other words, setting aside the highest principle is necessarily unjust, which means that applying mercy to the highest principle is unjust. > [@](#): > > \*\*Redefine? You are the one who gave the wrong definition of “mercy”. \*\* No, I didn’t. Would you like to begin comparing situations in which the term ‘mercy’ would be considered appropriate? > [@](#): > > \*\*To refresh your memory, you said that “mercy is defined as an exception to a rule”. I showed you where no such definition of mercy exists, and I asked you where you found it. You then hemmed and hawed about how “related words” imply your redefinition. \*\* Clemency _is_ an exception to a rule – specifically, it’s setting aside a legal penalty to reduce or eliminate someone’s punishment. It’s not a redefinition – it’s the core of what the concept means. Did you even think about the meanings of the definitions presented? Merely feeling compassion for someone isn’t mercy, and neither is showing compassion. That’s “being compassionate”. Hinduism makes fundamentally different assumptions about the nature of Divinity, time, souls, right and wrong, justice, mercy, and virtually every other important concept in Christianity. > [@](#): > > \*\*The reason you got hit in the head a lot when you played dodge ball as a kid is that you don’t dodge very well. One more time… When the law _is_ mercy, being merciful is not setting the law aside — it is, in fact, _enforcing_ it. \*\* But what’s the highest law? You continually fail to understand this idea – to be merciful, you must set aside one law in favor of a higher one. Mercy cannot be applied to the highest law, because there’s nothing to set it aside for. Your example contains an inherent contradiction. > [@](#): > > \*\*What is good is what is valued by God. But that drives you crazy, right? 😉 \*\* But that’s an empirical definition that can’t be empirically evaluated. As such, it’s useless. Now, if you had a well-defined meaning for “good”, then saying that it was valued by God would be a meaningful assertion about the nature of God. If you could demonstrate what God valued, you could make a meaningful assertioni about the nature of good. Without either, you have no foundation on which to build a conclusion of any kind. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-some-christians-accept-that-personal-experience-of-god-differs/192322/85 "2003-08-06T18:02:45Z")
In re: the OP, the human mind has a hard time grasping infinity in one dimension, let alone two, and many of us who have experienced the depth of God’s mercy have a sad tendency to forget its wideness. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-some-christians-accept-that-personal-experience-of-god-differs/192322/86 "2003-08-06T18:05:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* But that’s an empirical definition that can’t be empirically evaluated. As such, it’s useless. Now, if you had a well-defined meaning for “good”, then saying that it was valued by God would be a meaningful assertion about the nature of God. If you could demonstrate what God valued, you could make a meaningful assertioni about the nature of good. Without either, you have no foundation on which to build a conclusion of any kind. \*\* Or, to abbreviate, you do not accept the premise of an infinite and personal God. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-some-christians-accept-that-personal-experience-of-god-differs/192322/87 "2003-08-06T18:54:48Z")
I don’t really think my statement can be abbreviated that way. If I said that halablicheck was what tomogram valued, and tomogram was that which facilitated halablicheck, what conclusions could you draw from those statements? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-some-christians-accept-that-personal-experience-of-god-differs/192322/88 "2003-08-06T19:43:29Z")
Vorlon > [@](#): > > Bingo, Einstein. Is that some sort of argument or assertion? > [@](#): > > That’s the point. How can you evaluate the highest possible standard? Why on earth are you asking me? It’s YOUR argument: “Then that standard must be adhered to without fail.” — The Vorlon Ambassador’s Aide > [@](#): > > As always, your philosophical sophistication is at about the level I’ve come to expect from you, Lib. How does yet another personal attack advance your case? > [@](#): > > Those premises can be broken down into more basic elements – you’re not using the word “god” to reference a defintion you’re presenting, you’re taking an established concept and asserting that it includes a certain concept. Bizarre. Please demonstrate what you mean by breaking these down into “more basic elements”: G -\> G \<\>G > [@](#): > > Some premises are unjustifiable, Lib, and there can be valid and invalid reasons for rejecting a premise. Let me guess. Your reasons, of course, are valid and mine are invalid, right? > [@](#): > > The premises aren’t self-contradictory – they illustrate a contradiction inherent in the idea of being both perfectly just and perfectly merciful. Because of the nature of mercy, mercy cannot be an ultimate standard, because that would require that all lesser principles be set aside for a higher one while there is no higher one. What do you know about the nature of mercy? You have yet even to define it. And this business of establishing some imagined hierarchy of standards wherein mercy is on level 8 while justice is on level 9 thereby rendering them hopelessly at odds is just hogwash. About justice, you said that “lower laws may be set aside in favor of higher laws while preserving justice, but by definition there are no higher standards than the highest.” And yet when it is posited that mercy itself might be the highest standard, you say that the exact same reasoning — it “would require that all lesser principles be set aside for a higher one while there is no higher one” — disqualifies mercy as a standard altogether. Your whole argument is crazy and is based on your being some sort of supreme being: whatever premises you accept are valid, while those that you reject are invalid; mercy means whatever you please and changes from post to post; there are inviolate levels of standards assigned by you with the one you’ve selected being the highest; mercy cannot be the standard of justice because you have not said, “so mote it be”. > [@](#): > > In discussions of divine mercy, the debators usually implicitly assume that the highest standard is Goodness, and that mercy involves setting aside principles that lead to something other than Goodness. It follows from this that God cannot deviate from Goodness, even if it required an infliction of suffering and pain, and that such an infliction would be utterly right. Being “merciful” (not inflicting suffering and pain) would require setting the principle that the infliction of suffering and pain should be avoided over the principle of Goodness, which contradicts the idea that Goodness is the highest principle. In other words, setting aside the highest principle is necessarily unjust, which means that applying mercy to the highest principle is unjust. Now you’re back to mixing up ability and volition. God is not bounded by rules (or else He would not be God). He is not good because He _has_ to be — He is good because He _chooses_ to be. He is good because He loves goodness. For whatever reason, you have unilaterally declared that God must inflict pain to be just. There is no logical reason to make that assumption. A suicide and a murder are not the same. If a man chooses to reject God’s love, then blaming God for the man’s free exercise of will is a blatant fallacy. > [@](#): > > No, I didn’t [give the wrong definition of “mercy”]. You did indeed. You are denying it on the same page that you did it. You wrote: **“mercy is defined as an exception to a rule”**. That is in fact NOT how mercy is defined. > [@](#): > > Would you like to begin comparing situations in which the term ‘mercy’ would be considered appropriate? What I would like is for you to answer the original question: what if the standard of justice is mercy? Do not dodge the question by saying that it cannot possibly be. As a libertarian, I get the most bizarre hypotheticals imaginable, and I do not avoid them by saying they won’t ever happen. Just answer the question. > [@](#): > > Clemency is an exception to a rule – specifically, it’s setting aside a legal penalty to reduce or eliminate someone’s punishment. I haven’t said anything about clemency. Substituting a synonym for one meaning of mercy doesn’t get you out of the pit you’re in. > [@](#): > > It’s not a redefinition – it’s the core of what the concept means. Did you even think about the meanings of the definitions presented? Merely feeling compassion for someone isn’t mercy, and neither is showing compassion. That’s “being compassionate”. Well, let’s be clear. It was I, and not you, who presented the definitions. I asked you where you got yours, and showed you where I got mine. And there are four of them. The core concept of the sort of mercy taught by Jesus is from the second definition: forgiveness. You will find several references to it in His teachings. > [@](#): > > Hinduism makes fundamentally different assumptions about the nature of Divinity, time, souls, right and wrong, justice, mercy, and virtually every other important concept in Christianity. I can see why you wrote that without quoting the text I gave you, because what you say stands in direct contradiction to it. In both Hinduism and Christianity, Love is the key. > [@](#): > > But what’s the highest law? You continually fail to understand this idea – to be merciful, you must set aside one law in favor of a higher one. Not if the highest law is itself mercy. > [@](#): > > Mercy cannot be applied to the highest law, because there’s nothing to set it aside for. Your example contains an inherent contradiction. No, yours does. > [@](#): > > But that’s an empirical definition that can’t be empirically evaluated. As such, it’s useless. But this definition, “mercy is defined as an exception to a rule” is useful, right? […shaking head…] ---
**Author:** ![Svt4Him](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7feea3/32.png) [@Svt4Him](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Svt4Him)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-some-christians-accept-that-personal-experience-of-god-differs/192322/89 "2003-08-06T20:09:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by badchad \* > \*\*Polycarp: > > _Marc, contrary to the heart and soul of every fundamentalist’s message, Jesus never made himself into the only bridge from the storm-wracked mainland to the Isles of the Blest._ > > According to the bible he did. > > _In context, what he is saying is intended as reassurance, not an exclusionary definition._ > > Your confidence is no evidence not evidence to the accuracy of your statement. > > \*In other words – me, Jesus, who I am and what I’ve done – is God in human form. Trusting me is the way, the only way, to get there. > > Still sounds exclusist?\* > > YES IT DOES! Those who don’t trust Jesus don’t get there. That “only” word is pretty strong. What part of that is so difficult for you to understand? > > _Badchad, from what I’ve been able to gather, you are a non-believer who is citing Scripture at me from the fundamentalist perspective in an effort to demonstrate what you see as inconsistencies and hypocrisies in my way of understanding things._ > > This is somewhat incorrect. Yes I am an unbeliever, but I have been citing scripture from a perspective as close as possible to the way it is written. If a given occurrence is stated to be a parable I take it as a parable, if it is stated as something that really happened I take it as that. The only reason you call my perspective that of a fundamentalist is because their perspective is much closer to what is really written in the bible, while you tend to make up your meanings as you go along. I know you don’t like hearing that but sometimes truths are uncomfortable. > > _There was a perfectly good verb coined to describe that sort of action, but one of the rules here is not to use it in an accusatory manner, so I’ll avoid it._ > > There is a perfectly good word coined to describe the way you wimp out of a conversation when it puts you face to face with one of your internal contradictions but since I don’t want to deride that particular part of the female anatomy, I’ll avoid it. > > _But I would be pleased if you will justify why taking the stance you do is within the rules of practice here, and will undertake to answer you honestly and completely when you have done so._ > > I honestly can’t think of any reason why it wouldn’t be, this is the place for religious debates and you have made statements o-plenty which from all outward appearances sure seem contradictory with the world around us, the bible, the teachings of Jesus and even what you yourself have written earlier. All I have done is point them out and ask for you to explain yourself on these points and how you can have reason to believe in the good taught by Jesus and not accept the bad stuff to. I really don’t think that is against any rules of practice (where are they written anyway) though I would not be surprised if you still say it is so as to avoid any uncomfortable conversations. If that’s justification enough, then start at the top. You might want to start a new thread and if you miss stuff that I think is important I’ll be happy to paste it in. > > _I will, however, direct you to one resource you’ve apparently missed: if you see free will and deterministic theism as inherently contradictory, you should read Boethius’s Consolatio Philosophiae, Liber V. It’s been the standard for resolving that paradox for 1500 years now._ > > Oh it’s resolved, no wonder they never have free will vs. determinism threads on the great debates anymore.😉 I’ve read a lot of apologetic BS on the topic in the past and have yet to hear a half way decent explanation. While I haven’t read your source, I have sneaking suspicion the argument is nothing more than the same sewage. Still, if you think otherwise, how about posting a crib note version in your reply and I will be more than happy to comment. > > _And one further comment: if, as we believe, the Godhead is Trinitarian, with Christ as the active principle, then it was Christ who called Moses and Samuel, Christ who was the still small voice that Elijah heard…_ > > Cool, then the old testament is back in bounds, as such Christ is the one who created evil, Christ is the one who smites babies, Christ is the one who won’t let handicapped people approach his alter, Christ is the one who had 2 she bears maul 40 and 2 children, Christ is the one who made kings rebel against the Jews and then had them and their people killed for it, Christ is the one who put the snake in the Garden of Eden, Christ is the one who flooded the entire planet… > > As such please add to my list of questions why you think Christ is loving? Actions do speak louder than words you know. \*\* Wow, this is the first time I’ve almost agreed with most things. My only issue is with Christ being the one to create evil. My son will lie to me, I’m sure, during the course of his life. I didn’t create the lie, I didn’t make him lie, but he will. The God of the New Testament is the same as the God of the Old Testament. The Bible says that He never changes. He is just as merciful in the Old Testament as He is in the New Testament. Read Nehemiah 9 for a summary of how God mercifully forgave Israel, again and again, after they repeatedly sinned and turned their back on Him. The psalms often speak of God’s mercy poured out on sinners. He is also just as wrath-filled in the New Testament as He is in the Old. He killed a husband and wife in the Book of Acts, simply because they told one lie. Jesus warned that He was to be feared because He has the power to cast the body and soul into hell. The apostle Paul said that he persuaded men to come to the Savior because he knew the “terror of the Lord.” Read the dreadful judgments of the New Testament’s Book of Revelation. That will put the “fear of God” in you, which incidentally is “the beginning of wisdom.” Perhaps the most fearful display of His wrath is seen in the cross of Jesus Christ. His fury so came upon the Messiah that it seems God enshrouded the face of Jesus in darkness so that creation couldn’t gaze upon His unspeakable agony. Whether we like it or not, our God is a consuming fire of holiness (Hebrews 12:29). He isn’t going to change, so we had better …before the Day of Judgment. If we repent, God, in His mercy, will forgive us and grant us eternal life in heaven with Him. ---
**Author:** ![Freyr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/freyr/32/5763_2.png) [@Freyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freyr)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-some-christians-accept-that-personal-experience-of-god-differs/192322/90 "2003-08-06T22:07:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Svt4Him \* > \*\*… Whether we like it or not, our God is a consuming fire of holiness (Hebrews 12:29). He isn’t going to change, so we had better …before the Day of Judgment. If we repent, God, in His mercy, will forgive us and grant us eternal life in heaven with Him. \*\* **Svt4Him** , you’re free to follow your God in whatever way you think best. But I can only look on in befuddlement at a God who has to terrorize His followers into obedience. Maybe that’s not what it is and I’m sadly mistaken, but from all the postings by fundamentalists on this msg. board, that’s what it sounds like: a tyrannical bully who frightens people into following Him. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-some-christians-accept-that-personal-experience-of-god-differs/192322/91 "2003-08-06T22:12:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > **Why on earth are you asking me? It’s YOUR argument.** Do you know what a rhetorical question is? > [@](#): > > **How does yet another personal attack advance your case?** I don’t think you can distinguish between criticism and a personal attack. Actually, that would explain a lot about your posting habits on these boards. > [@](#): > > \*\*Bizarre. Please demonstrate what you mean by breaking these down into “more basic elements”: \*\* For example: God – the source of all things, a consciousness/intelligence beyond all comprehension, that which lies beyond this universe, the essence of Love, the essence of Goodness. Those are just some of the basic concepts that seem to be inherent in your idea of God, and none of them necessarily need to be related. > [@](#): > > **Let me guess. Your reasons, of course, are valid and mine are invalid, right?** In this particular case? Yes. Not always. My reasons aren’t valid because they’re mine – they’re mine because they’re valid. Your reasons aren’t invalid because they’re yours – they’re invalid because you ignore the needs of logic to choose that which delivers what you want to hear. > [@](#): > > \*\*What do you know about the nature of mercy? You have yet even to define it. And this business of establishing some imagined hierarchy of standards wherein mercy is on level 8 while justice is on level 9 thereby rendering them hopelessly at odds is just hogwash. \*\* I’ve already defined it – setting aside a rule to remain consistent with a higher-priority rule that leads to a reduction or elimination of suffering. If a leader overrides the legal system and pardons someone convicted of a crime, that can be mercy. If a judge can freely choose a range of punishments for an offender, and chooses a lighter punishment for the offender’s sake, that can be mercy. Giving or withholding punishment according to a set of principles is not mercy. The point is that an ethical or moral code that requires shows of “mercy” in certain situations requires justice, not mercy. Mercy would require setting aside that code to avoid suffering in situations denied by that code. > [@](#): > > \*\*About justice, you said that “lower laws may be set aside in favor of higher laws while preserving justice, but by definition there are no higher standards than the highest.” And yet when it is posited that mercy itself might be the highest standard, you say that the exact same reasoning — it “would require that all lesser principles be set aside for a higher one while there is no higher one” — disqualifies mercy as a standard altogether. \*\* Precisely. It’s like considering inconsistency to be the defining principle of someone’s behavior – if you’re always inconsistent, you’re consistently inconsistent, which is a paradox. > [@](#): > > \*\*Your whole argument is crazy and is based on your being some sort of supreme being: whatever premises you accept are valid, while those that you reject are invalid; mercy means whatever you please and changes from post to post; there are inviolate levels of standards assigned by you with the one you’ve selected being the highest; mercy cannot be the standard of justice because you have not said, “so mote it be”. \*\* :dubious: > [@](#): > > \*\*Now you’re back to mixing up ability and volition. God is not bounded by rules (or else He would not be God). \*\* You can only reach that conclusion if you assume that God is bound by logic – and since your assumption requires that God not be bound by any rules, including logic, your conclusion is necessarily incorrect. If God wasn’t bound by rules, He could be bound by rules and still be God. He also wouldn’t be God. He also would never have been God, and always have been God, and hated goodness, and loved goodness, and been indifferent to goodness, and not existed, and existed… > [@](#): > > \*\*You did indeed. You are denying it on the same page that you did it. You wrote: **“mercy is defined as an exception to a rule”**. That is in fact NOT how mercy is defined. \*\* An example in its definition is “clemency”. Do you know what clemency means, **Libertarian**? Mercy can loosely be considered to be “giving someone better than they deserve” out of compassion. If you give someone what they deserve, or less than they deserve, it’s not mercy. > [@](#): > > \*\*What I would like is for you to answer the original question: what if the standard of justice is mercy? Do not dodge the question by saying that it cannot possibly be. As a libertarian, I get the most bizarre hypotheticals imaginable, and I do not avoid them by saying they won’t ever happen. Just answer the question. \*\* What would I see if I rode on a beam of light, **Libertarian**? What would happen if an immovable object met an irresistable force? What is the square of the largest possible prime number? > [@](#): > > \*\*I can see why you wrote that without quoting the text I gave you, because what you say stands in direct contradiction to it. In both Hinduism and Christianity, Love is the key. \*\* Do you know anything about the theological and philosophical positions of the two faiths? > [@](#): > > **Not if the highest law is itself mercy.** How can people deserve to be given more than they deserve? > [@](#): > > \*\*But this definition, “mercy is defined as an exception to a rule” is useful, right? […shaking head…] \*\* Actually, it’s quite useful. It’s not mercy unless a standard is suspended. Therefore, acting in accordance with a principle that defines what people deserve is not mercy. ---
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2003, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-some-christians-accept-that-personal-experience-of-god-differs/192322/92 "2003-08-07T01:17:29Z")
Svt4Him: _Wow, this is the first time I’ve almost agreed with most things._ Kind of funny huh. I’m as atheist as they come but I understand the fundamentalist perspective and though I don’t agree with it I find it has a few less personal contradictions than the liberal persuasion, Polycarp’s version in particular. I often wonder what folks like you think, as while I’m not exactly complementary to your belief system, I reckon it might sound that way compared to all those on these boards who judge you harshly for being to judgmental.🙂 _My only issue is with Christ being the one to create evil._ That one’s scriptural too. Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the lord do all these things. _My son will lie to me, I’m sure, during the course of his life. I didn’t create the lie, I didn’t make him lie, but he will._ That is true but you weren’t all powerful and all knowing in your creation of your son. Allegedly it’s a different matter with god and as such he should bear more responsibility for the shortcomings of his creation. \*The God of the New Testament is the same as the God of the Old Testament. The Bible says that He never changes. He is just as merciful in the Old Testament as He is in the New Testament. Read Nehemiah 9 for a summary of how God mercifully forgave Israel, again and again, after they repeatedly sinned and turned their back on Him. The psalms often speak of God’s mercy poured out on sinners. He is also just as wrath-filled in the New Testament as He is in the Old. He killed a husband and wife in the Book of Acts, simply because they told one lie. Jesus warned that He was to be feared because He has the power to cast the body and soul into hell. The apostle Paul said that he persuaded men to come to the Savior because he knew the “terror of the Lord.” Read the dreadful judgments of the New Testament’s Book of Revelation. That will put the “fear of God” in you, which incidentally is “the beginning of wisdom.”\* I agree more than I disagree. Shear numbers smited was more in the Old Testament, but the eternal suffering (which I would say is worse than simple death) part got heavily emphasized in the New Testament. As such I don’t think one could say Jesus was any less wrathful than his father, which as we know is stupid to say anyway because he and his father are one in the same, and even the watered down version of Christianity seems to be in agreement on this. ---
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2003, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-some-christians-accept-that-personal-experience-of-god-differs/192322/93 "2003-08-07T01:26:45Z")
Freyr _Svt4Him, you’re free to follow your God in whatever way you think best. But I can only look on in befuddlement at a God who has to terrorize His followers into obedience. Maybe that’s not what it is and I’m sadly mistaken, but from all the postings by fundamentalists on this msg. board, that’s what it sounds like: a tyrannical bully who frightens people into following Him._ If we define Christianity as those who follow the teachings of Jesus then I think you are kind of stuck with worshiping the above god, as according to the only recorded teachings of Jesus, he did all that stuff. Sure you can follow a god that doesn’t do the above stuff, but I don’t see why you would call it Christianity. But what do I know, maybe all the scary stuff recorded in the bible was nothing more than transcriptional error.😉 ---
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2003, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-some-christians-accept-that-personal-experience-of-god-differs/192322/94 "2003-08-07T01:42:19Z")
Polycarp: _But I would be pleased if you will justify why taking the stance you do is within the rules of practice here, and will undertake to answer you honestly and completely when you have done so._ I held up my part of the bargain. And you Polycarp? ---
**Author:** ![Beryl\_Mooncalf\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9f8e36/32.png) [@Beryl\_Mooncalf\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beryl_Mooncalf_1)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2003, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-some-christians-accept-that-personal-experience-of-god-differs/192322/95 "2003-08-07T07:05:02Z")
Yo, Siege. I think I found your answer! Human beings must be known to be loved; but Divine beings must be loved to be known. - Pascal ---
**Author:** ![Siege](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Siege](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siege)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2003, 9:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-some-christians-accept-that-personal-experience-of-god-differs/192322/96 "2003-08-07T09:36:56Z")
**Svt4Him** , I’d like to discuss and debate our conflicting views on the nature of God, but I’d prefer to do it in a different thread. I feel that to do so here could come across as not respecting your views. Besides, in a new thread, we might gather some more interesting opinions. CJ ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2003, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-some-christians-accept-that-personal-experience-of-god-differs/192322/97 "2003-08-07T10:50:20Z")
Vorlon > [@](#): > > Do you know what a rhetorical question is? Apparently, that is one and, like the others, contributes nothing to this debate. > [@](#): > > I don’t think you can distinguish between criticism and a personal attack. Actually, that would explain a lot about your posting habits on these boards. Either way, Great Debates is not the place either to attack or criticize other posters. It would behoove you to attack and criticize arguments, not people. > [@](#): > > For example: God – the source of all things, a consciousness/intelligence beyond all comprehension, that which lies beyond this universe, the essence of Love, the essence of Goodness. Example of _what_? This business of constantly reminding you of what you’ve said is becoming tiresome. You said that “\<\>G” and “G-\>G” “can be broken down into more basic elements”. How is “God – the source of all things, a consciousness/intelligence beyond all comprehension, that which lies beyond this universe, the essence of Love, the essence of Goodness” a more basic element than either of those? > [@](#): > > Those are just some of the basic concepts that seem to be inherent in your idea of God, and none of them necessarily need to be related. My idea of God is simple: Supreme Being — or G. > [@](#): > > In this particular case? Yes. Not always. My reasons aren’t valid because they’re mine – they’re mine because they’re valid. Your reasons aren’t invalid because they’re yours – they’re invalid because you ignore the needs of logic to choose that which delivers what you want to hear. What I want to hear is compelling argument, and I am coming to realize that I won’t get that from you. > [@](#): > > I’ve already defined it – setting aside a rule to remain consistent with a higher-priority rule that leads to a reduction or elimination of suffering. So that is your latest incarnation of the original definition: “mercy is defined as an exception to a rule”. That puts us back where we started. Here are the [definitions](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mercy) of mercy. Remember that I showed you these before. And I asked you then where you got yours. The answer, I suppose, is that you made it up. Mercy need not set aside any “rule”. If you feed a child who is hungry, what rule are you breaking? What higher principle are you setting aside? > [@](#): > > If a leader overrides the legal system and pardons someone convicted of a crime, that can be mercy. If a judge can freely choose a range of punishments for an offender, and chooses a lighter punishment for the offender’s sake, that can be mercy. Giving or withholding punishment according to a set of principles is not mercy. I’m sure that, as you say, they _can_ be mercy. But it is a logical fallacy to affirm your consequent. Just because a squirrel is a rodent does not mean that all rodents are squirrels. A rodent _can_ be a squirrel, but to define rodent as “squirrel” is misguided. > [@](#): > > The point is that an ethical or moral code that requires shows of “mercy” in certain situations requires justice, not mercy. Mercy would require setting aside that code to avoid suffering in situations denied by that code. Back again to this unanswered point: if mercy _is_ the rule, then how is exercising mercy setting aside the rule? > [@](#): > > Precisely. It’s like considering inconsistency to be the defining principle of someone’s behavior – if you’re always inconsistent, you’re consistently inconsistent, which is a paradox. Then your argument rivals the most splendid Russian nesting dolls: it is a paradox inside a puzzle inside an enigma inside a mystery. > [@](#): > > You can only reach that conclusion if you assume that God is bound by logic – and since your assumption requires that God not be bound by any rules, including logic, your conclusion is necessarily incorrect. If God wasn’t bound by rules, He could be bound by rules and still be God. He also wouldn’t be God. He also would never have been God, and always have been God, and hated goodness, and loved goodness, and been indifferent to goodness, and not existed, and existed… Like many of the points you raise, I don’t know what that one means. You apparently switched from deduction to induction, thereby falling into the trap of reasoning from the particular to the general. It is not God Himself who is bounded by logic or its rules; rather, it is our _perception_ of Him that is bounded by these. It isn’t that He cannot make a square circle; it is merely that we wouldn’t know how to perceive one. > [@](#): > > An example in its definition is “clemency”. Do you know what clemency means, Libertarian? Yes, I do. But you don’t know what definition means. Here is what you’ve done: you’ve looked at the definitions I gave you for mercy and have selected a synonym which is the final part of one of them. You have then selected the definition of that synonym as the definition you will use for mercy. And you have done this for no reason other than that it lends some nominal support to the conclusion you have already reached. Using your same technique, a person could argue that a hairy man is dangerous. Here are the [definitions](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hairy) of hairy. One of them gives a synonym of “hazardous”. And one of the [definitions](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hazardous) of hazardous is danger. Therefore, by your logic, a hairy man is dangerous. > [@](#): > > Mercy can loosely be considered to be “giving someone better than they deserve” out of compassion. If you give someone what they deserve, or less than they deserve, it’s not mercy. Loosely? If your argument becomes any more “loose”, it will become a tautology and be proved by every statement that is possible. Why don’t you just claim to be saying that A is A and get it over with. It would be a great mercy to us all. 😉 > [@](#): > > What would I see if I rode on a beam of light, Libertarian? What would happen if an immovable object met an irresistable force? What is the square of the largest possible prime number? It should be noted that that was your answer to this: “What I would like is for you to answer the original question: what if the standard of justice is mercy? Do not dodge the question by saying that it cannot possibly be.” When you play dodge ball, the idea is to _avoid_ getting hit. > [@](#): > > Do you know anything about the theological and philosophical positions of the two faiths? So far, between the two of us, I alone have provided citations about them. Maybe the question you raise is one of those rhetorical ones. > [@](#): > > How can people deserve to be given more than they deserve? It’s _your_ private, personal definition. Not mine. Is caring for a sick child not merciful? How does the child not deserve the care you give? And why would he not deserve _everything_ you can possibly give? God gives no less than everything that is His to anyone who will accept it. What could be more merciful or more just? > [@](#): > > Actually, it’s quite useful. It’s not mercy unless a standard is suspended. Therefore, acting in accordance with a principle that defines what people deserve is not mercy. Again, when you stop to feed a hungry child, what higher standard have you suspended? ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2003, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-some-christians-accept-that-personal-experience-of-god-differs/192322/98 "2003-08-07T12:18:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*Apparently, that is one and, like the others, contributes nothing to this debate. \*\* That wasn’t a rhetorical question – and your response indicates that you don’t actually understand what they are. > [@](#): > > **Either way, Great Debates is not the place either to attack or criticize other posters. It would behoove you to attack and criticize arguments, not people.** Your arguments are consistently incomplete, illogical, and trivial. > [@](#): > > \*\*Example of _what_? This business of constantly reminding you of what you’ve said is becoming tiresome. You said that “\<\>G” and “G-\>G” “can be broken down into more basic elements”. \*\* No, I said that your definition of God can be broken down. Your problem, **Lib** , is that you have no insight. You have no idea of why you think and believe the things you do – and this causes you to fall into error almost constantly. > [@](#): > > **How is “God – the source of all things, a consciousness/intelligence beyond all comprehension, that which lies beyond this universe, the essence of Love, the essence of Goodness” a more basic element than either of those?** Each one of those things is a basic assertion about God. > [@](#): > > **My idea of God is simple: Supreme Being — or []G.** And what’s the “Supreme Being”? How does that related to your claim that God is Love? > [@](#): > > \*\*Mercy need not set aside any “rule”. If you feed a child who is hungry, what rule are you breaking? What higher principle are you setting aside? \*\* If you follow a code of behavior that mandates your feeding the hungry child, you’re breaking no rule – but you’re also not being merciful. Your behavior is not motivated by feelings of compassion. > [@](#): > > **Back again to this unanswered point: if mercy _is_ the rule, then how is exercising mercy setting aside the rule?** Asked and answered. ‘Mercy’ involves suspending a rule that govens your behavior to act according to a principle that treats people “better than they deserve”. If mercy is the highest principle, then to exercise it, mercy must be set aside. > [@](#): > > **Then your argument rivals the most splendid Russian nesting dolls: it is a paradox inside a puzzle inside an enigma inside a mystery.** To you, I’m sure this is incomprehensible. > [@](#): > > **Like many of the points you raise, I don’t know what that one means.** No kidding. > [@](#): > > \*\*It is not God Himself who is bounded by logic or its rules; rather, it is our _perception_ of Him that is bounded by these. It isn’t that He cannot make a square circle; it is merely that we wouldn’t know how to perceive one. \*\* You have no idea of what it means to say that something isn’t bound by logic, do you? No, I can tell my your statements that you don’t. Without logic, there is no distinction between true and false – God must possess all properties and none. > [@](#): > > \*\*Here is what you’ve done: you’ve looked at the definitions I gave you for mercy and have selected a synonym which is the final part of one of them. You have then selected the definition of that synonym as the definition you will use for mercy. And you have done this for no reason other than that it lends some nominal support to the conclusion you have already reached. \*\* No, I’ve pointed out the meaning of one of the synonyms used in the definition, primarily because you _are unable to understand the definition itself_. > [@](#): > > **Is caring for a sick child not merciful? How does the child not deserve the care you give? And why would he not deserve _everything_ you can possibly give?** If it’s what the child deserves, it’s duty and not mercy. And how should I know what a sick child deserves? > [@](#): > > \*\*Again, when you stop to feed a hungry child, what higher standard have you suspended? \*\* Generally, none, which is why it’s not merciful. This is going nowhere – I suggest you begin posting to the thread specially made for this topic and stop hijacking this one. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2003, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-some-christians-accept-that-personal-experience-of-god-differs/192322/99 "2003-08-07T12:33:51Z")
For a link to the hijack discussion: [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=202716) Oh, and while I’m at it: > [@](#): > > Main Entry: mer·cy > Pronunciation: 'm&r-sE > Function: noun > Inflected Form(s): plural mercies > Etymology: Middle English, from Old French merci, from Medieval Latin merced-, merces, from Latin, price paid, wages, from merc-, merx merchandise > Date: 13th century > **1 a : compassion or forbearance shown especially to an offender or to one subject to one’s power; also : lenient or compassionate treatment \ > b : imprisonment rather than death imposed as penalty for first-degree murder** > 2 a : a blessing that is an act of divine favor or compassion b : a fortunate circumstance \ > 3 : compassionate treatment of those in distress \ > > - mercy adjective > - at the mercy of : wholly in the power of : with no way to protect oneself against > synonyms MERCY, CHARITY, CLEMENCY, GRACE, LENIENCY mean a disposition to show kindness or compassion. **MERCY implies compassion that forbears punishing even when justice demands it \**. CHARITY stresses benevolence and goodwill shown in broad understanding and tolerance of others \. CLEMENCY implies a mild or merciful disposition in one having the power or duty of punishing \. GRACE implies a benign attitude and a willingness to grant favors or make concessions \. LENIENCY implies lack of severity in punishing \. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2003, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-some-christians-accept-that-personal-experience-of-god-differs/192322/100 "2003-08-08T00:58:50Z")
I notice **Libertarian** hasn’t posted to this thread after I gave a more complex definiton. Well, **Lib**? Just haven’t gotten around to it yet, or are you admitting defeat? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-some-christians-accept-that-personal-experience-of-god-differs/192322.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-some-christians-accept-that-personal-experience-of-god-differs/192322.md?page=6)