Christians and predestination [Archive]

blueback

11-13-2007, 10:51 PM

According to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible: God has everything planned and there's nothing you can do about it.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

What the Bible says about Free Will
God determines who is going to heaven ...

"And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." -- Acts 13:48

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.... Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." -- Romans 8:29-30

"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began." -- 2 Timothy 1:9

"He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." -- Ephesians 1:4-5

"God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation." -- 2 Thessalonians 2:13

and who is going to hell.

"God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned." -- 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12

"For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation." -- Jude 4

There's nothing you can do about it.

"For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth. .... For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction." -- Romans 9:11-22

wise

11-14-2007, 02:10 AM

I know what you mean.
That's why I don't believe in predestination.

The Bible says that God is not willing that any should perish. 2 Peter 3:9

I agree with Rose.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

John 11:25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies.

The Rose

11-14-2007, 08:34 AM

According to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible: ...I don't usually believe skeptics.

blueback

11-14-2007, 01:02 PM

The title of the site doesn't mean they wrote their own bible it means they hyperlinked every published version of the bible to every other and kept track of all the contradictions and passages that speak to certain issues.

Check out the site before you dismiss it.

Jennywocky

11-14-2007, 01:52 PM

I've checked out self-proclaimed "skeptic" sites before (I've been doing so since the mid-90's, when the web was first really going up), and many of the discrepancies they rant about occur because of a lack of experience and/or formal training with the text(s).

They also use the same style of argument and distortion and nit-picking as do the religious fundamentalist apologists who I find illogical.

It seems to be waste of time to get too immersed in either... especially if you have little free time to spend on such things.

One learns a great deal more by finding serious apologists both for and against a particular religious faith and studying their arguments. Most armchair scholars get hung up in trivialities.

The Rose

11-14-2007, 02:43 PM

thecraig

11-14-2007, 05:49 PM

Why do Christians need to tell others about G-d if they're predestined? Which makes me wonder, what is G-d's pupose of creating people who aren't a predestined Christian?

1. If God predestined the beleivers why do Christians need to tell others about God?

"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." Mark 16;15 KJV

This scripture in Mark is just one instance where Christians are commanded to spread the gospel (gospel means good news) of Jesus. The simplest answer to your first question is because they are commanded to do so.

2. The answer to your second question has already been answered in the posting from our freind Blueback from the book of Romans chapter 9.

"Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction."

Tarrick

11-15-2007, 12:06 AM

And let us not forget Matthew 28:19
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

And as for those verses Blueback, context (both in speech and in culture) needs to be taken into account.

rwyatt365

11-15-2007, 10:31 AM

Forgive my ignorance, but isn't 'predestination' (within the context of Christianity) the concept that God has set the end from the beginning. That is, God has determined the outcome of everything and everyone from the beginning of time. Our only role in this predestined creation is to recognize our place and accept it as truth. So, if we are among God's "chosen", and don't realize it yet, it is the responsibility of those that have come to the realization of "God's truth" to inform us of our "chosen" status. However, since no man knows God's plan, those that are "chosen" can only broadcast that message (the Gospel) to all mankind in the hopes of reaching the "chosen" that are unawares.

Also, speaking in the context of Christianity, God intended that all men would be saved (I don't have a Bible nearby, but I seem to remember that). But God knows that some would reject him, and some would turn away from him. That is a function of man's free will (something else that God gave to man). So, while God's desire is that all men be saved, it is known ("predestined") that some would not be. I think it has been argued that this is an indication of a flawed design – but that's another argument.

Now, in all of this I am not necessarily citing my beliefs, I'm just posing a logical supposition based on my limited understanding.

The Rose

11-15-2007, 10:49 AM

Solaris

11-15-2007, 11:33 AM

I will not get my insight on God from skeptics. It's very easy to twist the Bible into meaning things it doesn't by taking things out of context, or only reading part. Some books, you have to read the whole book to understand a few lines. I think somebody made reference to this already, but I wanted to restate it.

RW, I don't see how you could think free will indicates a flawed plan. Unless I misunderstood you, that's what you said. Free will shows that God's plan has some flexibility IMO. God certainly wants us to do/not do some things, but he loved us enough to make us in such a way that we get to decide for ourselves what we're going to do.

rwyatt365

11-15-2007, 11:45 AM

RW, I don't see how you could think free will indicates a flawed plan. Unless I misunderstood you, that's what you said. Free will shows that God's plan has some flexibility IMO. God certainly wants us to do/not do some things, but he loved us enough to make us in such a way that we get to decide for ourselves what we're going to do.
Don't misstate me, I said;

Also, speaking in the context of Christianity, God intended that all men would be saved (I don't have a Bible nearby, but I seem to remember that). But God knows that some would reject him, and some would turn away from him. That is a function of man's free will (something else that God gave to man). So, while God's desire is that all men be saved, it is known ("predestined") that some would not be. I think it has been argued that this is an indication of a flawed design – but that's another argument.
...indicating that the argument is "someone else's" not mine.

I brought up the point to highlight the dichotomy in an "all loving, all powerful" God that desires all men to be saved but whom allows some a choice not to be. This is to the OPs comment "what is the purpose of creating people" who won't be saved?

Jennywocky

11-15-2007, 03:44 PM

I will not get my insight on God from skeptics. It's very easy to twist the Bible into meaning things it doesn't by taking things out of context, or only reading part. Some books, you have to read the whole book to understand a few lines. I think somebody made reference to this already, but I wanted to restate it.

I stated it earlier... but I'd have to add that even many professed Christians don't really seem to understand the Bible.

(How many of us even do? It's a book compiled over a period of 1500 years or so, covering a span of cultures, in languages we don't even speak, in the context in a way of life that we have simply not experienced.)

I know I might understand how some things seem to piece together, but I know there is a lot I'm missing.

So there are different degrees of ignorance. *sigh*

Solaris

11-15-2007, 04:17 PM

Don't misstate me, I said;

...indicating that the argument is "someone else's" not mine.

I brought up the point to highlight the dichotomy in an "all loving, all powerful" God that desires all men to be saved but whom allows some a choice not to be. This is to the OPs comment "what is the purpose of creating people" who won't be saved?

Thanks for the clarification!

blueback

11-17-2007, 02:01 AM

There are too many people to quote, so I'll just assume you know who you are.

I pulled this out of the FAQ for the Skeptic's Annotated Bible:

Why should I believe what you say about the Bible?

You shouldn't. Read it yourself and decide for yourself what you think about the Bible. That is the whole point of the SAB

The SAB is simply the text of the King James version of the bible in html format with hyperlinks to different passages. The bulk of the site is God's word made easily searchable, it's no one's opinion.

The creator does state that his purpose in creating the site was to draw attention to the parts of the Bible that are contradictory and repugnant, but he draws no conclusions. He simply lists the passages next to each other and lets you decide what you think of them. If you think they're out of context you can jump to the full text and get the context. A few apologist websites even mention that the SAB doesn't make editorial arguments.

So, I'm curious, why do you reject the site? I know that there's a very human tendency to ignore disconfirming evidence, but we're INTJs. Is your faith something that is too precious to test? Do you feel like you don't need any evidence to support your faith? Do you assume that anything skeptics would call "wrong" with the Bible is just them willfully misunderstanding God's words?

The Rose

11-17-2007, 11:08 AM

In case you were addressing me:

There are plenty of Christian Apologists who can skillfully explain the "so-called contradictions" of the Bible. I don't believe the Bible contradicts itself. People who hate God or refuse to believe He exists are not people I choose to listen to. I happen to have a living relationship with God. I know He is real, and what an unbeliever has to say about it won't change that.

I am not the type that gets involved in fruitless and useless debates about these things. I answered the OP. I won't argue with those who don't want to believe. My desire is to share with those who want to believe.

Jennywocky

11-18-2007, 03:09 PM

...So, I'm curious, why do you reject the site? I know that there's a very human tendency to ignore disconfirming evidence, but we're INTJs. Is your faith something that is too precious to test? Do you feel like you don't need any evidence to support your faith? Do you assume that anything skeptics would call "wrong" with the Bible is just them willfully misunderstanding God's words?

My "faith" is always in flux. There's nothing precious about it.

My complaint with most skeptic sites is that they're based on ignorance... just like most "Christian apologist" sites are.

When you have a full life and you've been around the block a few times, you don't have the time to waste reading complaints/criticisms by people that have already been addressed numerous times elsewhere. It's mostly a pragmatic choice to better spend my time elsewhere.

Many of the armchair skeptics and armchair Christian apologists seem to regurgitate "Level 1" arguments and never actually discuss things long enough to move onto more serious criticisms.

stasis

11-18-2007, 03:34 PM

I'm not a Christian, but it has always seemed to me that the existence of free will would pretty much preclude by definition any divine controlling of human will. If the original human chose Original Sin of its own free will, and that willful sin proliferated throughout all of humankind as a consequence, then it seems to make corresponding sense that counteracting the sin would also need to be accomplished in the same fashion. With regard to Christianity, that would be the human Jesus choosing to die for those sins and that willful sacrifice subsequently proliferating throughout humankind as a consequence. Predestination would have to be more like a god having foreknowledge of what you're to do because you've already done it (from its perspective), not because that god is making you do it.

'Course, if you don't believe in free will, all of that is moot. And I'm no authority on Christian theology.

blueback

11-19-2007, 12:25 AM

My "faith" is always in flux. There's nothing precious about it.

So, if you ignore the skeptics and the apologists, why is your faith in flux? What happens that causes a 'dip' in your faith? What happens that causes a 'rise' in your faith?

My complaint with most skeptic sites is that they're based on ignorance... just like most "Christian apologist" sites are.

Well, this site is based on the Bible, that is why I referred to it. All the site does is pull passages out of the Bible which address certain questions. It's exactly the same thing that non-skeptics do.

Do you believe that the Bible is the word of God?

Do you believe that the Bible is open to interpretation?

Do you believe that there are parts of the Bible that can/should be ignored?

intJAY

11-19-2007, 03:01 AM

When one remembers the classic story A Christmas Carol, one recalls the infamous Scrooge and the way that he treated his employee, Bob Cratchit, on Christmas Eve. One also recounts the many ghosts that visited Scrooge visited on that very night. One ghost was
Scrooge’s dead business partner, Jacob Marley. Wearing the “chains of hell,” Marley warned Scrooge of his current ill-fated path. Later, three other ghosts appeared. The ghost of Christmas past showed Scrooge how things would have been if he had married a good woman instead of choosing greed. The ghost of Christmas present reminded Scrooge of his current situation with Cratchit’s family, and the ghost of Christmas future showed Scrooge what would in fact happen at his ill-attended and somewhat celebrated funeral if he continued on his current path. This was presented as a "soft fact" in that Scrooge may repent and change his destiny. In a similar way, this is how middle knowledge works.

If we are to understand the mechanics of middle knowledge then we must first distinguish between the logical priority and the chronological priority of God’s knowledge. Logical priority does not mean that something happens in God’s “head” in chronologically measurable time. Rather it means that God “thinks” in a certain orderly, chronologically immeasurable fashion—it deals in course of thought and not tensed time. There are no measurably distinct moments in God’s knowledge. He knows all true propositions at once. However there is a logical order to the propositions that are chronologically immeasurable. Keeping this in mind, God not only knows all the possibilities that free creatures could do in any possible world prior to creation (via His natural knowledge) but He also knows what free creatures actually would in fact do in any possible world prior to creation. Knowing what “would” happen is known as God’s middle knowledge.

Out of all of the possible worlds God could have chosen to create, God chooses to create the “subset” world that “contains” the contingent creaturely freedoms that best “fit” His teleological cause. This action is done through logical priority and is not chronologically tensed.

So, what does this mean for predestination? God knows what we would freely choose in any situation. He has given us the power to choose. However, prior to creation, God chose what situation to put us in. A good article concerning this topic is located here: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. .

blueback

11-19-2007, 05:43 PM

Look, I don't care how many words you use. Free will is still free will.

If you are created by a being that understands you 100% and dropped into a situation the same being understands 100% then that being knows what the eventual outcome of the situation will be. Therefore, you don't have free will because your choice was taken away the moment you were forced into the situation.

Basically, it all comes down to one question: Can you suprise God?

If yes, then you have free will. If no, then you don't have free will. I'm not sure what organ it is that allows people to think that they have free will and at the same time are following God's preordained plan, but I don't have it.

stasis

11-19-2007, 10:27 PM

Basically, it all comes down to one question: Can you suprise God?

If yes, then you have free will. If no, then you don't have free will. I'm not sure what organ it is that allows people to think that they have free will and at the same time are following God's preordained plan, but I don't have it.
I don't think this is the case. If a god's knowledge of your "future" actions were a product of your having acted in the future, then that knowledge would be governed by your will and not his. Because there is no past, present, or future from an omniscient and omnipresent perspective such as that purported to be held by the Christian god, it is impossible to surprise him, by definition. That needn't impinge upon free will. Especially not if we consider free will to be a creation of the god, and therefore a person's being able to act according to his or her own will a part of its plan.

Oversphere

11-20-2007, 12:21 AM

I think that the Christian concept of "free will" is totally meaningless. Here's why:

1. God knows everything.
2. God can do anything.
3. God created everything

Therefore, everything that God created, he created exactly the way he wanted it. If my free will "malfunctions" and chooses to do bad stuff, it's because God designed it that way. I didn't design it. I just woke up with it one day. God knew when he designed my free will exactly how it would perform. He could have made it "better" or "worse" or "extra gullible" or "psychotic" or "almost good enough" or "righteous". However the performance of my free will is ultimately judged, it only performed as it was designed.

This is all assuming that I believe in that particular Bronze Age Goat Herder religion, which I (obviously) don't.

blueback

11-20-2007, 12:51 AM

I don't think this is the case. If a god's knowledge of your "future" actions were a product of your having acted in the future, then that knowledge would be governed by your will and not his. . .if we consider free will to be a creation of the god, and therefore a person's being able to act according to his or her own will a part of its plan.

I just woke up with [free will] one day. God knew when he designed my free will exactly how it would perform. He could have made it "better" or "worse" or "extra gullible" or "psychotic" or "almost good enough" or "righteous". However the performance of my free will is ultimately judged, it only performed as it was designed.

I think that Oversphere has hit the nail right on the head.

You can accept that God sees everything that ever happened, is happening, and will happen, so can I. That's not impossible for God, hell, it's not even hard. However, the only way we can have free will AND a God who sees all time is if he didn't have anything to do with creating the events he is watching.

If he knew beforehand exactly what the results of his actions would be then we were created and are acting out the script he foresaw. Since we had no choice about being created, and we have no way to do anything God didn't already see, we don't have free will.

If God created us with a plan, then we are just a very complex computer program that is simply counting clock cycles. God planned us, compiled us, and is just waiting for his processor to churn through a few quintillion years.

Actually, how's this for an idea. What if God was able to create the universe, but was unable to see the future of the universe he created until it was actually in existence. Then he would have had the power of creation, and now he has the power of omnicience, he just didn't have them at the same time. Then we would have free will. I dunno, the whole thing is moot. Until God appears to me as a burning bush I'm not going to act as if he is watching me.

Lucid

11-20-2007, 02:49 AM

This may be a little off topic, but speaking of judgment and free will...

Why do people blame the Jews for killing Jesus? For one thing, it seems to me that it was the Romans who killed Jesus and the Jews merely let it happen. But if Jesus was sent to earth to be killed... why is anyone angry at anyone else over it? Why does Judas get such a bad reputation? Wasn't he (and the Jews and the Romans for that matter) just doing god's work??

Tarrick

11-20-2007, 03:02 AM

DanAir

11-20-2007, 07:50 AM

My free will is to believe in Jesus. I like the free extended warranty on my existence.

stasis

11-20-2007, 10:39 AM

If he knew beforehand exactly what the results of his actions would be then
But this can not apply. God knowing something "beforehand" would require god to have a future. From an omnipresent perspective on time, there is no before or after. The Christian god must be regarded in terms of eternal being, not past, present or future being. And to do so is to entertain a nonlinear definition of 'to act'; strictly speaking, an omnipresent god would not act at all. God is.

Actually, how's this for an idea. What if God was able to create the universe, but was unable to see the future of the universe he created until it was actually in existence. Then he would have had the power of creation, and now he has the power of omnicience, he just didn't have them at the same time. Then we would have free will.
I would say that if the Christian god wanted to create something, that would constitute not only the thing being created, but that thing always having existed. Because we're not dealing with time at all, creation and knowledge are retroactively simultaneous. There are no events.

I dunno, the whole thing is moot
I agree, and I apologize if I'm giving the impression of attempting to convince you otherwise. I don't believe in a god or gods. It's just that I don't think this Christian concept is logically invalid in the way you suggest it is.

blueback

11-20-2007, 11:03 AM

It's just that I don't think this Christian concept is logically invalid in the way you suggest it is.

Okay, then that is what we are disagreeing on. Yay!

I'm sure that we aren't going to come up with anything that hasn't already been said, but I still think the process is important.

1) God isn't limited by time or space

2) God knows everything (ref #1)

3) God can do anything (ref #1)

4) God saw the entire span and history of the universe (ref #2)

5) God created the universe (ref #3)

Can we agree up to this point? Because this is where things start to get strange.

bucolic_

11-20-2007, 11:16 AM

stasis

11-20-2007, 11:35 AM

Okay, then that is what we are disagreeing on. Yay!

I'm sure that we aren't going to come up with anything that hasn't already been said, but I still think the process is important.

1) God isn't limited by time or space

2) God knows everything (ref #1)

3) God can do anything (ref #1)

4) God saw the entire span and history of the universe (ref #2)

5) God created the universe (ref #3)

Can we agree up to this point? Because this is where things start to get strange.
We can, with an addendum. I think the strangeness in the scenario comes from the epistemological "how". So, to go over the list:

1. Agreed.
God isn't limited by time because god does not experience time. God is not "in" time, which would have to be the case if god is the catalyst of time.

2. Agreed.
God knows everything because god, in not being limited by space, is everywhere experiencing everything. God's knowledge is not the product of correctly imagining possibilities that do not yet exist, but of experiencing what exists. This would have to be the case if god's will defines essential existence.

3. Agreed.
As is predicated by 2, the definition of the Christian god includes the will of god being the definition of essential existence.

4. Disagree.
This might be where the problem begins to develop. God is. You said "god saw"; by this, do you mean to imply that god existed before the universe existed? That sort of statement can only be valid from our linear perspective, from the perspective of beings within time. From god's Designing perspective, as per 1, the universe has always existed. The concept of predestination is only valid when relating this Designing perspective to linear quanta.

5. Agreed.
The Christian god is defined as being the origin of the universe.

Lucid

11-20-2007, 01:28 PM

Well, for one thing, the Romans did kill him but at the insistence of the Jewish Sanhedrin. And while Jesus was sent to die for our sins, he was still executed for crimes he didn't commit and Judas still betrayed him. Whether or not Judas had a choice in matter is debatable however, in my opinion. If he was coerced beyond his ability to control, then that's one thing. If he did it of his own free will, the he is a betrayer, destined or not.

If he hadn't been a betrayer then Jesus would not have died, which he was supposed to do. I don't think it's a matter of coercion (which I think has a connotation of influencing another's free will). God sends his son to die and then some people get angry at the humans who bring this about. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

gebstone

11-20-2007, 01:32 PM

i may be new here, but let me just shed some light on this matter, if i can.
well, what i believe we all are doing is firstly to define God and his periphery, what he can do, cant do and will not do.

i believe the question of predestination would be one of if one 'wants' to or not. let's take some daily activities as examples.
do you 'want' to eat?
do you 'want' to play?
is that classified under 'free will'?

i believe we arent pre-ordained to specificially do stuff like that, we have a choice to decide what we want to do at that point in time. i think predestination in this context would be the general picture, the path that God wants us to take, but within that broad path we do have many choices to have our 'free will' as you all so describe. God is flexible no doubt. it's like God telling us to stay in a building, but not which unit or which floor to stay. the minute details God will let us handle, i believe. after all, we did chose to eat from the tree of good and evil.

Tarrick

11-20-2007, 01:47 PM

If he hadn't been a betrayer then Jesus would not have died, which he was supposed to do. I don't think it's a matter of coercion (which I think has a connotation of influencing another's free will). God sends his son to die and then some people get angry at the humans who bring this about. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

First, as to coercion, there are verses in the bible that state that "Satan was allowed to take over Judas" or something to that effect. Second, from one view point, yes it was necessary that Jesus die, so why is it a big deal that an evil took place? On the other hand, from another point of view, an innocent man was executed, an evil was committed; doesn't matter that it was destined to happen, it happened.

If you kill a murderer before he even considers committing murder, did you kill a murderer? Or did you kill an innocent man? Was it a good that a murder was prevented, or was it an evil that you murdered an innocent man?

Lucid

11-20-2007, 01:59 PM

First, as to coercion, there are verses in the bible that state that "Satan was allowed to take over Judas" or something to that effect. Second, from one view point, yes it was necessary that Jesus die, so why is it a big deal that an evil took place? On the other hand, from another point of view, an innocent man was executed, an evil was committed; doesn't matter that it was destined to happen, it happened.

If you kill a murderer before he even considers committing murder, did you kill a murderer? Or did you kill an innocent man? Was it a good that a murder was prevented, or was it an evil that you murdered an innocent man?

Well if Satan took over Judas then yeah, I guess that qualifies as coercion and makes it silly to blame Judas for anything. If Satan was "allowed" to take over Judas this further removes his responsibility, since it seems to be implied that god allowed it in order to ensure Jesus would be executed.

I understand your point about an innocent man being executed. What I don't understand is why it doesn't matter that it was god's will that it happen the way it did. I would say that doing something evil because god has deemed it necessary would make a person immune from any kind of culpability.

Having said that, I realize that it has the possibility of eliminating all responsibility for our actions, since it's possible to argue that all evil is god's will or satan's will, etc. (I guess this brings us back to the free will question we started with), but I think the Jesus dying for our sins situation is unique in that it is one of the only ones where we can be sure (according to Christian doctrine) that the evil in question was, in fact, god's will.

Personally, I'm an agnostic and I believe that everyone is responsible for their actions and decisions. But I enjoy religious debates a great deal ;D

blueback

11-20-2007, 05:45 PM

Lucid

11-20-2007, 10:22 PM

So, if it was God's will that Jesus die, and Jesus was God, then God willed his own death. . .so wouldn't that be suicide?

Is it suicide to cut off your finger? I think the Christian doctrine is that Jesus was a part of god who was on earth.

Tarrick

11-20-2007, 10:57 PM

My understanding of the Holy Trinity is that God is at once The Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost. So, when he "sent his son" to Earth it was really God taking the form of a man, while at the same time still being God up in Heaven.

So, if it was God's will that Jesus die, and Jesus was God, then God willed his own death. . .so wouldn't that be suicide?

And another thing: how come God doesn't pull any of the stunts he pulled back in the Old Testament anymore? I mean, no wonder they wrote the Bible! God was constantly doing one thing or another that proved his existence. It's like God got a new management book for Christmas (his birthday) and was like "Oh, cool. There's a thing in here called 'self-managed teams'. That sounds really neat. I wonder if it will work on Earth." and then he just left us to take care of ourselves.

God does have three aspects yes. However, Jesus was cut off (in some way) from the Father as he cried out "Father, why have you abandoned me?!" while on the cross.

As for suicide...or even conspiracy to commit murder :suspicious:, you can make the argument that God is above laws like that. After all, God allows everyone to die eventually and allows the circumstances to happen as well, so why/how would the cruxifiction be different in that manner?

blueback

11-21-2007, 07:12 PM

Is it suicide to cut off your finger? I think the Christian doctrine is that Jesus was a part of god who was on earth.

How can someone be 'part' of God? If Jesus was God, which he claimed, then he was God, who is infinite. Part of infinity would still be infinite.

God does have three aspects yes. However, Jesus was cut off (in some way) from the Father as he cried out "Father, why have you abandoned me?!" while on the cross.

As for suicide...or even conspiracy to commit murder :suspicious:, you can make the argument that God is above laws like that. After all, God allows everyone to die eventually and allows the circumstances to happen as well, so why/how would the cruxifiction be different in that manner?

Well, the whole Jesus-as-God-but-also-a-man thing is pretty illogical anyway. I don't think you can draw a venn diagram or flow chart of the situation. So maybe Jesus was God, but then he wasn't? Like God posessed him but then un-posessed him right before he was crucified. I don't know. I just thought it made for a fun mental puzzle.

Oh, how about this. You know how some people think that God is a woman? Well, does God impregnating Mary prove that God is a He? I mean, a female God would have just producde Jesus herself, right?

Danellian

11-21-2007, 08:22 PM

I haven't read this entire thread, but based on some of the bits and pieces I have read, I have just a few comments:

1. The doctrine of the Incarnation is, of course, illogical. All Western religions involve some amount of faith, because there is always some element of seeming paradox, and actual antinomy, in them. Even Buddhism, which is the most empircal religion in the world, stresses the importance of paradox when is speaks of overcoming duality to arrive at Truth.

2. We will never understand the infinite being that is God. How could we, as finite beings with finite minds? That is itself would be an absurdity greater than any antinomy created by the doctrine of the Incarnation. God doesn't exist in time and space as we do. There comes a point where we have to yield to God and accept that we will not understand everything about His Will.

3. While I am not one to extole the virtues of faith since I myself have trouble with faith every day, such difficulties do not mean we should give up the fight. I know it's not easy, I know sometimes it seems totally illogical and stupid, but these are obstacles we must surpass. If we cannot subordinate ourselves to God, we cut ourselves off from all meaning in our lives.

blueback

11-22-2007, 01:56 PM

3. While I am not one to extole the virtues of faith since I myself have trouble with faith every day, such difficulties do not mean we should give up the fight. I know it's not easy, I know sometimes it seems totally illogical and stupid, but these are obstacles we must surpass. If we cannot subordinate ourselves to God, we cut ourselves off from all meaning in our lives.

Prove it.

If you are trying to overcome the illogical-ness of faith because you want to then you already have faith. I don't, so tell me why I should.

I think there's plenty of meaning in life without God or an afterlife. The meaning we put into it as sentient beings who are so incredibly lucky to have the chance to change the world. We have to make the most of it because it's our only chance and there's nothing after this. I think there is more meaning in that than simply acting out the script God wrote down before I was ever born.

Danellian

11-22-2007, 03:34 PM

If I saw things like you did, I would be a Buddhist. The reason for this is that there is no objective meaning to anything without God. Try this. Let's cut God out of the picture, then you tell me why it is wrong the commit murder. Was the Holocaust wrong? Can you honestly say it wasn't? If it was wrong, why was it wrong? In the end, when we get to the most basic reason, the bottom line, the reason it is wrong is because it causes unhappiness. But why does it matter if we are unhappy? If it doesn't matter, then there is no objective morality. In this case, there would only be subjective morality, which really isn't morality at all, since morality involves an objective statement about what is right and wrong, whereas what you are talking about involved mere subjective opinion about what is right and wrong, coupled with subjective evaluation about the value of happiness and unhappiness. The only thing that can judge something to be objectively right or wrong within this physical universe is something outside the system itself, and that something correlates to what we call God. To give another example, we can thrive in this world, we can make a difference in this world, as you mention, we can make ourselves and others as happy as possible, but that is still not a matter of morality until it is imbued with meaning to make it objective. According to your scenario, all your efforts are meaningless. You ask for proof. There is no proof. If there was proof, then the divine would be lowered to the level of human understanding, and hence, would no longer be divine. The proof you so desire involves a conceptual contradiction. Contradiction is the very complaint you lodge against faith, but I likewise lodge a complaint against lack of faith on the grounds of inherent contradiction. It all comes back to the central question as to whether or not you want to have meaning in your life.

blueback

11-23-2007, 05:07 AM

If I saw things like you did, I would be a Buddhist. The reason for this is that there is no objective meaning to anything without God. Try this. Let's cut God out of the picture, then you tell me why it is wrong the commit murder. Was the Holocaust wrong? .

Well, without an absolute definition of 'wrong' you can't declare anything wrong. Wrong means different things to different people, even people that share the same religion. Writing down some basic rules that everyone pretty much agrees on (at least in principle) and saying that they are God's rules doesn't make them absolute. It just makes you the founder of a religion.

In my humble opinion, we should judge things by the only absolute standard that exists in nature, survival. Everything that means anything to us ties into survival for reason which are so obvious I'm not going to explain them.

In this case, murder is wrong because we trust each other to respect each person's right to survive. If we don't protect that right for each other society falls apart and everyone is at greater risk of death. The Holocaust was just murder on a larger scale.

the bottom line, the reason it is wrong is because it causes unhappiness. But why does it matter if we are unhappy? .

No, that is what Buddhism says, but it's off the mark. Sure, quality of life is a factor, but life itself is more important. Just think of all the people who go on living even though doing so causes them tremendous pain. They aren't thinking about being happy, they are thinking about living. It is harder for a person to give up the desire to live than to give up the desire to be happy.

If it doesn't matter, then there is no objective morality. In this case, there would only be subjective morality, which really isn't morality at all, since morality involves an objective statement about what is right and wrong, whereas what you are talking about involved mere subjective opinion about what is right and wrong, coupled with subjective evaluation about the value of happiness and unhappiness. .

All morality is subjective. Each person defines for themselves what moral absolutes they will not violate and what rules they will follow. People often agree on the major points, but only when it benefits themselves. You can't define objective morality because you are not objective. You are a moral creature who stands to gain or lose based on the moral choices you make and how they relate to other people. You could say that God is objective, but then you'd have to have a direct, unambiguous communication channel with him.

According to your scenario, all your efforts are meaningless. .

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. I compared the relative merit, to me, of having free will vs. being God's finger puppet. How can you say that Leonardo da Vinci's efforts were meaningless? Or Abraham Lincoln's? Or Alexander the Great's? How can you say that what they did with their lives is moot simply because they don't get to watch the world after they die? Their lives had, and continue to have, a great deal of meaning for everyone who came after them.

You ask for proof. There is no proof. If there was proof, then the divine would be lowered to the level of human understanding, and hence, would no longer be divine. .

Then you are making a logical argument with faith. If you are going to claim that everyone should agree with you simply because you are REALLY sure you are right, then at least mention that first so that those of us who think for ourselves can skip what follows.

The proof you so desire involves a conceptual contradiction. Contradiction is the very complaint you lodge against faith, but I likewise lodge a complaint against lack of faith on the grounds of inherent contradiction. It all comes back to the central question as to whether or not you want to have meaning in your life.

There is no contradiction in a universe without God. The universe started, we arrived, we invented the concept of God. The end. There is also no contradiction in a universe with God. God always existed. He created the universe cuz it seemed like a good idea. He created us, because he's God and he can. The end. Of course, one of those requires at least one leap of faith, while the other does not. Care to hazard a guess as to which is which?

Your question (theh meaning in your life one) is not a good question. It presupposes too much. It's like saying "Do your parent's know you're gay?"

I simply explained where the meaning in my life comes from. I didn't say that your life was without meaning if you disagreed with me.

Danellian

11-23-2007, 05:02 PM

Blueback, the thing I don't think you're getting about my argument is this: If something has meaning to you, or to me, or to anybody else, that alone is not sufficient to make an objective statement that said concern has meaning.

Here is where I think you are coming from: None of us has a direct, infallible line to God. Thus, according to my view, none of can know what that objective meaning is, or what is right and wrong.

The things it this: I'm not presupposing that we need to have an infallible line with God in order to know what is right and wrong. We do need to have some link with God. I agree with you that we are all trying to figure out what is right and wrong, we are limited to our own opinions, and none of us is perfect. That is why, left to our own, we are trapped within a world of subjectivity. That is also why we have to work on our relatonship with God. We can't focus solely on the destination, we must focus on the journey. Thus, we have an ever increasing understanding of morality as we deepen our relationship with God. But we are not God.

So, to you, what makes life matter, or happiness, or whatever your bottom line is?

The way I see it, you are willing to cast aside the idea that anything can be objectively right or wrong because you do not want to subordinate yourself to God.

I do not see a contadiction between free will and moral responsibility. This is such a complicated issue, not a simple one like you are making it. We can discuss this further, if you want.

So, you do not believe in God at all?

blueback

11-23-2007, 06:09 PM

Blueback, the thing I don't think you're getting about my argument is this: If something has meaning to you, or to me, or to anybody else, that alone is not sufficient to make an objective statement that said concern has meaning.

You're right. I don't understand what you mean by this.

Here is where I think you are coming from: None of us has a direct, infallible line to God. Thus, according to my view, none of can know what that objective meaning is, or what is right and wrong.

Agreed. I think. Assuming I understand what you are saying.

The things it this: I'm not presupposing that we need to have an infallible line with God in order to know what is right and wrong.

So where are you getting your standards of right and wrong? If you don't have to get them straight and unedited from God, where are you getting yours?

We do need to have some link with God.

That right there is where you are "presupposing." First, that there is a God, and second that we can have a link with him, and third that we need to.

I agree with you that we are all trying to figure out what is right and wrong, we are limited to our own opinions, and none of us is perfect.

Agreed.

That is why, left to our own, we are trapped within a world of subjectivity.

Well, if by 'trapped' you mean "lucky enough to be alive in any world" then I agree with you. No one's trapped here. You can punch your own ticket out any time you want to. But you don't want to, because none of your ancestors did, and you are a product of survival-driven evolution. Besides, in a sense everything is subjective.

Your brain is a squishy blob of cells inside a very dark box. Everything you experience is interpreted by cells, translated into electrical signals, and interpreted by more cells in your brain. Technically everything you see happened in the past, since that process takes time, and everything you see is only a portion of the infinite information available, since that process has limited bandwith. So even the information you take in through your sense and use to make decisions is a bit subjective. It's not perfect, but it's all we've got.

That is also why we have to work on our relatonship with God. We can't focus solely on the destination, we must focus on the journey. Thus, we have an ever increasing understanding of morality as we deepen our relationship with God. But we are not God.

See, there is that leap of faith again. I don't have problem with you having faith, I just have a problem with you pretending it is logical.

How, exactly, do you develop an increasing understanding of morality by worshiping God? Everyone knows what is right and wrong, it's just up to the individual to act on that knowledge, instead of what is most expedient.

So, to you, what makes life matter, or happiness, or whatever your bottom line is?

I already explained that.

The way I see it, you are willing to cast aside the idea that anything can be objectively right or wrong because you do not want to subordinate yourself to God.

Nope. I refuse to subordinate myself to anything which can't be proven. God is simply on that list. Why should I do what your God wants when there are so many other Gods who want so much? I mean, don't you refuse to subordinate yourself to Zeus?

I do not see a contadiction between free will and moral responsibility. This is such a complicated issue, not a simple one like you are making it. We can discuss this further, if you want.

Neither do I. I never said there was a contradiction, but thanks for sharing.

Look, you can make it as complicated as you want, but ultimately you have to act in the real world. That means you have to be able to figure out what you think so that you can make a decision. Usually that is a binary decision, Yes or No, do it or don't do it. It doesn't get much simpler than binary.

It's kind of like the number Pi. Technically it is an infinitely complex number because we can never define it exactly. So we round off to whatever number of significant figures we need for the situation and call it good. Are we RIGHT? No, because we left something out. However, not making a decision is still making a decision and it is often WRONG to fail to take responsibility for making a decision.

So, you do not believe in God at all?

Well, no. In the sense that I don't BELIEVE in anything. I have theories, and some of them are pretty damned accurate, but they are always open to change if I get some new information. Seriously, why would I believe in YOUR God when there are so many others? Belief requires faith, which is basing your decisions on something without, or inspite of, proof. That's just not me.

Danellian

11-23-2007, 06:27 PM

My argument about how subjection opinion in not objective truth, to clarify, I would like to ask you: I get your whole point about how we are engaged in an imperfect process of figuring out what is right and wrong because we are imperfect beings. When I said we are trapped in our subjective frameworks, I didn't mean that this like sucks, I meant that there is the opportunity to transcend complete subjectivity and move toward objectivity. If you say something is right or wrong, and you seem to assent that there is a right and wrong, if your only basis for that claim of rightness or wrongness is admittedly subjective opinion, then the fact is that you are believing in a "subjective morality". Do you believe in an objective morality outside our subjective opinions, because if so, there is no *proof* of it. If you do not, then you have to admit that your notion of morality is defined entirely in terms of subjective factors, and that is not morality at all. Opinion does not equal fact. Belief does not equal Truth. Reality is not what it is merely because we believe it is. The world exists rather we think it does nor not. God exists rather we think He does or not. Something, like mass murder, is wrong rather we think it is or not. According to your viewpoint, we cannot say that mass murder is objectively wrong. The only thing we can say is that we believe it to be wrong, which, under your framework, is logically equal to the statement that mass murder is wrong. Unless you are agreeing that morality exists outside of our opinions of it, in which case, we get back to the problem of proof, since you will not believe in anything without proof.

blueback

11-24-2007, 02:59 AM

I get your whole point about how we are engaged in an imperfect process of figuring out what is right and wrong because we are imperfect beings. When I said we are trapped in our subjective frameworks, I didn't mean that this like sucks, I meant that there is the opportunity to transcend complete subjectivity and move toward objectivity.

So you know where to find complete objectivity? That's pretty impressive, you should call the folks at the Guinness book, or something. You know, since you are an imperfect, subjective being and all, your opinion of something's objectivity must, inherently, be subjective.

If you say something is right or wrong, and you seem to assent that there is a right and wrong, if your only basis for that claim of rightness or wrongness is admittedly subjective opinion, then the fact is that you are believing in a "subjective morality".

You can use the word 'believe' all you want, but I will keep correcting you. I THINK that all morality is subjective and I think that I have a pretty good basis for my morality. But, you are free to disagree with me, that's what makes it subjective.

Do you believe in an objective morality outside our subjective opinions, because if so, there is no *proof* of it.

Nope. Precisely because there is no proof of it.

If you do not, then you have to admit that your notion of morality is defined entirely in terms of subjective factors, and that is not morality at all. Opinion does not equal fact. Belief does not equal Truth.

Yes, I've said that several times now.

However, you are wrong about subjectivity not being morality at all. Are you saying that no one could have possibly been moral before the concept of the Christian God was introduced?

Reality is not what it is merely because we believe it is. The world exists rather we think it does nor not.

Correct. . .or does it? How do you KNOW the world exists? How do you KNOW that what you call 'red' is the same thing I call 'red'? How do you KNOW we aren't in the Matrix?

God exists rather we think He does or not.

Correct. . .or does he? How can anyone say for sure that God exists? How can anyone say for sure God doesn't exist?

Something, like mass murder, is wrong rather we think it is or not. According to your viewpoint, we cannot say that mass murder is objectively wrong. The only thing we can say is that we believe it to be wrong, which, under your framework, is logically equal to the statement that mass murder is wrong.

Well, there are an awful lot of examples throughout history where an awful lot of people thought that mass murder was right. I'm sure the people being murdered disagreed. Of course, thinking that way is often the direct result of being in a shitty situation. On average people try to ensure that mass murder doesn't happen, but sometimes it's a choice between them and us.

For example, would you kill 1000 people to save 1 person? What if that person was your baby daughter? What if that person was you? Would you kill 1,000,000 people to save 1000? What about killing 1000 to save 1,000,000?

Unless you are agreeing that morality exists outside of our opinions of it, in which case, we get back to the problem of proof, since you will not believe in anything without proof.

You have trouble with reading comprehension, don't you. I don't BELIEVE anything. I don't THINK anything without proof. It is the definition of belief to not have proof, I don't have a problem with anyone else's beliefs, except when they pretend they have proof.

About the question, I can't agree that morality exists outside of our opinions. There is no proof of such a thing. There can never be proof of such a thing. If God decided to start smiting anyone who committed murder, we would quickly figure out exactly what God considered murder. Then, God would simply be a really powerful guy who knows a lot and ennforces his opinion of what is right and wrong, which is exactly what a powerful human would do if they could. Keep in mind that what you understand is a magic trick, a less civilized person 1000 years ago would have thought was magic. It's all a matter of degrees.

Tarrick

11-24-2007, 03:24 AM

You have trouble with reading comprehension, don't you. I don't BELIEVE anything. I don't THINK anything without proof. It is the definition of belief to not have proof, I don't have a problem with anyone else's beliefs, except when they pretend they have proof.

Nice insult there :thumbsup:, but you making a flawed argument here.

First of all, there are degrees of belief and everyone uses them, whether they think about it or not.

First of all, proof is what? It's something that is concrete, that can be relied upon. But that proof needs to be proven first right?

So. What do we know for sure? Well, "I think therefore I am" I guess. And even that is something that could be questioned, but we'll go with that. So let's label our base proof as "n"

Next, as we are "n" we have access to five senses. These senses may or may not be correct, but they seem to be, as they are perceived by "n". So we can accept them and label them as "s".

So through "s" we are able to reliably observe the world around us. We can see things, but can we be assured that they are there when we aren't looking? We can't observe them all the time, so it may or may not be the case.

We may also notice our appearance and that other being are wandering around that look like us. Should we assume that they "p" are equivalent to "n"? We have no observable proof that they can think on the inside. They talk as if they can, and can perform actions as well. It's not that far a leap to believe that they can, but we can't just believe it, can we?

blueback

11-24-2007, 06:09 PM

Nice insult there :thumbsup:, but you making a flawed argument here.

I wasn't trying to insult him, I was trying to get his attention by insulting him. The ends justified the means.

First of all, there are degrees of belief and everyone uses them, whether they think about it or not.

No, there aren't and no, they don't.

First of all, proof is what? It's something that is concrete, that can be relied upon. But that proof needs to be proven first right?

Yes, if you want to get into a recursive nihilistic loop then it is impossible to prove anything just like it is impossible to have your cake and eat it too. However, it is more practical to operate on the basis of proof anyone in the world requires, "does it work?" Can you use it to predict events in the real world? If yes, then it works, if no, then it doesn't work.

They talk as if they can, and can perform actions as well. It's not that far a leap to believe that they can, but we can't just believe it, can we?

I skipped all that stuff about the alphabet because It didn't make any sense to me.

You still haven't explained why my argument is flawed. But that's not really a suprise.

Tarrick

11-24-2007, 06:23 PM

At some point you need to believe the proof because there is no way to prove the proof is valid.

janonymous

11-25-2007, 07:40 AM

hey fellow intj'ers...

predestination is not linear. god is all knowing, thus knows all possibilities of the choices we may or may not make in life. if god knows all combinations of all outcomes, then your future can be predestined and still free in some sense.

think of free will as the freedom to choose from an infinite variety of directions within a sphere. to god that looks upon us from the outside, the eventual outcome will be the same (we will reach the circumference). but from our linear perspective within the sphere, we see our result as unique due to the exact point we ultimately reach on the surface.

i believe our greatest problem lies in our flawed minds assuming the perspective of god. despite our vast intelligence, we are still less than infinity and far from perfect. even if we possess 2/3 of god's knowledge, the 1/3 we lack stretches to infinity and creates an eternal canyon of difference with respect to what we understand.

note: I don't think asking the question "Can you surprise God?" is relevant. the consensus is that god must be omnipotent. so there can be absolutely no way you can do something unexpected to an all knowing being.

Lucid

11-25-2007, 02:09 PM

I think humans trying to understand the mind, nature or wants of a supreme being like god is like a cockroach trying to understand the mind, nature and wants of a human. Just not possible. And I think it's a tribute to our arrogance as a species that we think we can. :)

blueback

11-25-2007, 02:50 PM

At some point you need to believe the proof because there is no way to prove the proof is valid.

Tarrick, if you want to drink cold water on a hot day because you "believe" it's going to cool you off then I wish you the best. However, if you want to recognize the difference between the act of assuming-something-is-true-because-you-want-it-to-be and acting-as-if-something-is-true-until-the-evidence-indicates-otherwise then you can start using the words 'believe' and 'think' the way their definitions indicate they should be used. Substituting the word "believe" for the word "think" cheapens belief and confuses your thoughts. There is a reason those two words exist.

I think humans trying to understand the mind, nature or wants of a supreme being like god is like a cockroach trying to understand the mind, nature and wants of a human. Just not possible. And I think it's a tribute to our arrogance as a species that we think we can. :)

Speak for yourself. I've said many times that discussing whether or not God exists and what he thinks is a moot conversation. There can never be proof one way or the other. Of course, it can be fun to speculate, and there are quite a lot of people who claim to understand the mind of God, but that's what makes the world an interesting place.

Lucid

11-25-2007, 04:02 PM

Speak for yourself. I've said many times that discussing whether or not God exists and what he thinks is a moot conversation. There can never be proof one way or the other.

I was speaking for myself. But I think you've just agreed with what I was saying.

Of course, it can be fun to speculate, and there are quite a lot of people who claim to understand the mind of God, but that's what makes the world an interesting place.

I completely agree and never meant to give the impression that we should cease all discussion of god-related topics. :)

blueback

11-26-2007, 12:10 AM

I completely agree and never meant to give the impression that we should cease all discussion of god-related topics. :)

Well, "arrogance" does have a negative connotation, and comparing those who attempt to understand God to cockroaches has the same negative connotation. Since there are words and analogies you could have chosen which don't have a negative connotation, I have to assume you think negatively of people who try to understand God.

I could be wrong, but that's where my impression came from.

Lucid

11-26-2007, 01:43 PM

Well, "arrogance" does have a negative connotation, and comparing those who attempt to understand God to cockroaches has the same negative connotation. Since there are words and analogies you could have chosen which don't have a negative connotation, I have to assume you think negatively of people who try to understand God.

I could be wrong, but that's where my impression came from.

I think all humans try to understand god. It's human nature. I also think that humans, as a species, are rather arrogant.
I just chose cockroaches randomly. It could have been butterflies. I think it's because I was watching a rerun of Dirty Jobs earlier that day and it was the one where he follows an exterminator. So I had roaches on the brain. If you like, substitute cockroaches in the analogy to butterflies.
Although it's rather silly for people to be offended about being compared to roaches. They're quite amazing animals.

I'm not speaking of individual humans, rather humans as a whole.

blueback

11-26-2007, 02:38 PM

Although it's rather silly for people to be offended about being compared to roaches. They're quite amazing animals.

Yeah, you're rationalizing now. Find one example where a person has ever been favorably compared to a cockroach.

BTW, I wasn't offended by it, I just want to make sure you understand that there was no way to perceive it as neutral or complimentary.

Lucid

11-26-2007, 02:50 PM

Yeah, you're rationalizing now. Find one example where a person has ever been favorably compared to a cockroach.

Actually I was joking. I didn't see my post as comparing an individual to a cockroach. More as comparing a type of human behavior (exhibited by all humans) to a futile exercise that was so absurd as to be humorous. And since I counted myself as being a part of the "all humans" category, failed to see how one might take offense.
But I do understand how you could have been offended and how my comparison could have been misinterpreted.

However, I take offense to being told what I meant by a post. You are not in a position to know what my intentions were. I cannot think of a more arrogant or insulting thing for someone to do.

BTW, I wasn't offended by it, I just want to make sure you understand that there was no way to perceive it as neutral or complimentary.

You're contradicting yourself. If there was no way to perceive it as neutral or complimentary than the only way left to perceive it would be offensively. If you weren't offended by it (and I hope that you were not, and am ready to believe you when you say you were not) then there must be a way for such a comment to be taken at least neutrally. Although I suppose that's not really the point.

And speak for yourself. Just because there was no way for you to receive it as neutral or complimentary doesn't mean that's true for everyone.

However, it wasn't my intention to offend and therefore I apologize. In the future, I won't tell you what you think provided that you won't tell me what I think. Deal?

*Edit:
To clarify, here's how your statement came across:

Blueblack: "It's offensive to compare people to cockroaches."
Me: "Oh. I didn't mean it to be offensive."
Blueblack: "Yes you did."

To make a comparison:
Me: "I don't like tuna sandwiches."
Blueblack: "Yes you do."

I hope you can see what I'm saying.

blueback

11-26-2007, 06:23 PM

Okay :-)

I have a soft spot for irony and I see it quite often, and it makes me giggle. The problem is that most people don't see it and irony is really hard to sumarize into a punchline. So, your remark about cockroaches didn't bother me at all, I knew what you were trying to say, but I was suprised that you didn't see how it would be interpreted by the average person as insulting. I mean, I don't take anything personally. Sometimes people say things that actually piss me off but they do it accidentally and I get over it quickly.

Now that I've had longer to think about it I think I was reacting to things people have said to me in the past. My friends have pointed out that sometimes the things I say, especially to strangers, come off as insulting and/or condescending even though I just think I'm being funny.

They say that THEY understand what I was trying to communicate, but that the person who doesn't know me is going to take it the way they would if an average person said it, not someone like me who imbues it with deeper meaning.