|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4981 days) Posts: 228 From: jo'burg, RSA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Results are in...There is a God! - What now? | |||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
anastasia writes: In your analogy you did not mention the degree of accountability each child had to his parents. Because, in the context of gift-giving, the recipient has no accountability to the donor.
... you gave two acceptable good uses of a toy which can only be termed 'correct' or 'incorrect' relative to the desires of the givers. I gave examples of use and non-use. The child who didn't use the toy put only a monetary value on it. He would have been just as happy with the cash. He didn't appreciate the effort that was put into choosing a gift for him. He didn't appreciate the pleasure that the donor would get from watching him play with it. In a sense, a gift is a two-way street. That's why Jesus said, "It is more blessed to give than to receive."
I don't know a parent alive who doesn't get angry when a child breaks a new toy, and in many cases they certainly do punish them for their use of the gift. And they are wrong to do so.
Say baby Lala has a new toy and she bangs it on her sister's head. You're abusing the analogy. Baby Lala would be punished for hurting her sister. The toy is completely incidental. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5981 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Archer Opterix writes: This argument that generosity and engagement might be the incorrect choice is interesting... given the fact that Ringo's parable is practically a paraphrase of the Parable of the Talents (Mt 25). Did the servants in the parable share and squander their money? No, they increased it. Tell me Ringo's story where it is a paraphrase of the Parable, tell me how the first child bartered his toy for something even better, and then ask who is more 'correct'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
anastasia writes: I am having trouble drawing the line between 'the consequences of our actions' and the 'additional penalties'. I'll start with a simple one. If I cheat on my wife, she divorces me and I have to pay alimony. An "additional penalty" would be swimming in a lake of fire.
BTW...if you don't want your free-will.... Where on earth did you get that idea? If my free will is supposed to be a "gift", I want the giver to get the @#$% off my back and let me use it as I see fit. As far as I can tell, He seems to be cool with that. It's only those who don't understand what a "gift" is that seem to have a problem. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5981 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Ringo writes: Because, in the context of gift-giving, the recipient has no accountability to the donor. In the context of all 3 of the current examples, the recipient does have accountability. The receiver of the talents had accountability.Children have accountability. We have accountability, if not to God, at least to the state. If you would like to bring in an example of non-accountability gifting, you may.
I gave examples of use and non-use. The child who didn't use the toy put only a monetary value on it. He would have been just as happy with the cash. He didn't appreciate the effort that was put into choosing a gift for him. He didn't appreciate the pleasure that the donor would get from watching him play with it. In a sense, a gift is a two-way street. That's why Jesus said, "It is more blessed to give than to receive." I must have read an abreviated version of that story. I never heard about the child's lack of appreciation et al. But actually I detect a little flip-flopping here. Isn't using the gift in the way the donor wants it to be used 'accountability'? And in your story, you never said the parents wanted to watch the child use the toy. I was the one who brought up the desires of the parents in the first place.
Baby Lala would be punished for hurting her sister. The toy is completely incidental. Hey, this is your analogy here. In it toy=free will. I think baby Lala didn't use her toy appropriately.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
anastasia writes: If you would like to bring in an example of non-accountability gifting, you may. The talents were in no way to be construed as a "gift", so the example is irrelevant. You have not shown that children are "accountable" to their parents in their use of gifts. Our accountability to the state is irrelevant in the context of "gifts". If you would like to bring in an example of accountability gifting, you may.
Isn't using the gift in the way the donor wants it to be used 'accountability'? Of course not. Accounting is much more precise than that. Every gift has an "intended" use. Toys are intended to be played with. Free will is intended to be exercised. If the recipient doesn't play with the toy, he might as well have been given stocks and bonds. If the recipient doesn't exercise his free will, he might as well have been given handcuffs. My point being that the only "wrong" use of a toy is to not play with it. The only "wrong" use of free will is to surrender.
... you never said the parents wanted to watch the child use the toy. I was the one who brought up the desires of the parents in the first place. So you did get the point, even if you pretend not to. The desire of the parents is that the child have fun (and possibly learn something on the side). Their desire is not that the child play with the toy in a prescribed way. That would take most of the fun out of watching. By analogy, God's desire would be for us to "have fun" in the exercise of our free will - i.e. to learn to produce good consequences instead of bad ones. By analogy, His desire would not be to tell us what to do in every instance. That would take most of the fun out of watching us.
Hey, this is your analogy here. In it toy=free will. I think baby Lala didn't use her toy appropriately. Strictly speaking, baby Lala is your analogy, not mine. Literal-minded people have such trouble with analogies, don't they? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5981 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Ringo, I will return to a step-by-step debate if need be, but I will make an attempt to sum up your position which you may affirm or deny.
Would you say that receiving a gift gives us the right to use it in which ever way we chose? Would you say that if we are allowed to chose between good and evil, there should be no consequences for whichever choice we make?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
anastasia writes: Would you say that receiving a gift gives us the right to use it in which ever way we chose? Yes.
Would you say that if we are allowed to chose between good and evil, there should be no consequences for whichever choice we make? There should be no additional consequences beyond the natural consequences. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5981 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Ringo writes: There should be no additional consequences beyond the natural consequences. This is what it comes down to. In my opinion the natural consequence is damnation, in whatever way you define it.It may be a lake of fire, it may be a permanent dissipation of your spirit, it may be, as I see it, the eternal pain of seperation from God. In your opinion the natural consequences have nothing to do with the spirit, but maybe more with the old 'an eye for an eye' rule. Before I sound rude, I will explain. There is a certain amount of authority which we are able to exercise to bring a criminal to justice. If a man who commits crime is imprisoned it can be said that he got what he deserved. The problem is, did he repent? Did the natural consequence of his action change him? Or let's look at you alimony example. It is not a great one I must say. If a man cheats on his wife, there may be NO consequence. He may never get caught. If he is caught and divorce is the consequence, he may be happy. If he gets divorced and pays alimony, he may be so wealthy it doesn't matter, and alimony is never guaranteed. Even with all of the above, he is likely to get married again and repeat the 'punishment'. Besides, does alimony repair emotional damage done to wife or children? Since divorce is not a crime, apply the same thoughts to a serial killer. I would only like you to determine what the natural consequences are for a serial killer who is never caught? You may say 'guilt' but he may not feel guilty. The natural consequence of any evil action may be quite pleasant to the evil-doer. Lying, stealing, cheating or killing may be extremely convenient if you don't get caught. Unless you are on the receiving end, that is. The gift of choice between good and evil is just that. It does not render the evil 'good'. It does not grant immunity to those persistant in evil. That is unnatural and not even granted by law. But, on the bright side, it does, and God does, give us some room to make mistakes. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Ringo writes: No, but God in His wisdom may know that you will soon be forced to make a decision in your free will and not ride the wishy washy wave forever!
Let's say that the gift is the freedom to choose between right and wrong.Phat writes: Let's say that the gift is being able to figure out for ourselves what the consequences of our actions are. Perhaps by imparting an awareness of both spirits, vibes, or whatever you choose to call them... Phat writes: though not necessarily by exercising our will but by surrendering to the wind Let's say that God doesn't have to superimpose additional penalties on us. If we get punished for using the gift, why would we want it? Phat writes: thats like saying that if a person falls often while learning to ski, why would they want to ski? If the results are in and there is a God, what now? Same as before. Do you expect God to force you to enjoy your toys?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5877 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Quotes are nothing but inspiration for the uninspired. - Richard Kemph I'll assume this is not a joke. I first thought that it was. The quote fails under 'Unaffirmability' as a test for truth.As with all cntradictions, it denies it's own source of power and amputates it's own legs. Richard has his way with words- with words he likes to play. His words are few- just like his thoughts- those brain cells thinking Poo! Truth (God) is the source of His own power, and is never divided against Himself. Divided kingdoms and divided thoughts, cannot stand. Poor Richard. Edited by scottness, : No reason given. If we will not learn to eat the only food that the universe grows ” the only food that any possible universe ever can grow ” then we must starve eternally. (Lewis- The Problem of Pain)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
anastasia writes: In my opinion the natural consequence is damnation.... There is nothing "natural" about damnation.
quote: There's a reason why Paul made a distinction between wages and gift. The gift can not produce death, only life. Wages are one side of a contract. In our social contract, we stipulate punishmnet for crime. But a gift is not a contract - it's a one-way street. I don't know why it's so hard for some to understand: if there are strings attached, it is not a gift. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3625 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
I'll assume this is not a joke. I first thought that it was. You were right the first time.
quote: Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes: Let's say that the gift is the freedom to choose between right and wrong.
Perhaps by imparting an awareness of both spirits, vibes, or whatever you choose to call them... Sorry, I don't know what you're trying to say there.
Let's say that the gift is being able to figure out for ourselves what the consequences of our actions are.
though not necessarily by exercising our will but by surrendering to the wind Don't know what you're trying to say there either.
Let's say that God doesn't have to superimpose additional penalties on us. If we get punished for using the gift, why would we want it?
thats like saying that if a person falls often while learning to ski, why would they want to ski? Not at all. The falls are the natural consequence of the decision to ski. What we're talking about here is an additional punishment after the natural consequences. It would be like falling down all day while learning to ski and then being thrown into jail for being a lousy skier. That's what I'm saying God would not do.
Do you expect God to force you to enjoy your toys? No, but God in His wisdom may know that you will soon be forced to make a decision in your free will and not ride the wishy washy wave forever! Don't know what that's supposed to mean either. I'm talking about taking responsibility for your own actions. What's "wishy washy" about that? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5877 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Archer writes:
You were right the first time... The world is a tragedy to those who feel, a comedy to those who think.- Horace Walpole First instincts and hope usually precede doubt. Then we doubt those feelings by thinking, and then fear of the puzzle overshadows the joy of incomplete discovery. So which wins in the end? thoughts or feeling? We need both which is why we have both. We don't discover, by elimination of resources, we discover by finding how they cohere. And when they converge, we can see much more clearly. And that does not mean I have practiced such or mastered it as often as I should. I am a fool learning not to be,very slowly. They are not things that we can master. They are things we choose to let master us, or not.
The world is a tragedy to those who feel... At first intuition, or after the doubt of thought and the ensuing despair?
...a comedy to those who think. Cynical humor and it's manifest laughter, is a feeling created by somewhat conflicted thoughts. It is an attempt to hide the confusion by denying it. Of being faced with the paradoxes and irony, and realizing we do not know the way. Our only other choice is to get on our knees. Obviously, I reccomend the latter. As you can see, thinking is not usually comical. It is objective, and has the objective of discovering truth, so that your joy will be complete. Edited by scottness, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
scottness writes: Cynical humor and it's manifest laughter, is a feeling created by somewhat conflicted thoughts. quote: Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024