Yes. In often a seemingly unreasonable and tyranical way. He tormented David's Child for 6 days for example and then killed it. In what way was David's sin his child's fault? — Beebert

I direct you towards this book.

If God can do right by doing wrong from our perspective — Thorongil

No, your perspective is wrong. There is only one true perspective, and that is God's.

because God, if he exists and is goodness itself, is the author of our notions of right and wrong. — Thorongil

Your notions of right and wrong are first of all corrupted by original sin, so you do not see very clearly. Second of all, your notions of right and wrong are self-centered - or better said creature-centered - which means that they are myopic since they do not take into account your creaturely nature, and the difference between the Uncreated and the created. The Lord gives and the Lord takes away - FREELY! And it's His right to.

But there are plenty of Places where God beats up, torments and kills People in the old testament. How would the orthodox tradition understand these things? — Beebert

You mean there are places in the Old Testament where sinners are punished and killed? Of course.

Let me ask you - is God free?

But regarding God beating and tormenting people : Many Christian traditions claim that this is in fact one of the things God does (calvinism for example once again) — Beebert

Those traditions are wrong.

Clarify this negative. Nope as in, "no, God wouldn't do what we deem wrong," or nope as in, "you're wrong, Thorongil." — Thorongil

No as in God wouldn't do wrong. What is wrong for you to do isn't necessarily wrong for God to do - that's the difference between created creature and uncreated Creator.

Sure, but they wouldn't include doing that which is wrong among creatures, for then you're faced with a contradiction: God can do right by himself by doing wrong to us, so he can do both right and wrong simultaneously, which is impossible. — Thorongil

Nope.

Also please note that God depriving you of free will doesn't mean the same thing as me depriving you of free will. When I deprive you of free will, I don't actually eliminate your free will, but rather physically force you to do what you do not want to do - which is harmful and painful. When God deprives you of free will he takes away your free will entirely. — Agustino

I haven't said God could beat you and torture you and that would be right.

Also please note that God depriving you of free will doesn't mean the same thing as me depriving you of free will. When I deprive you of free will, I don't actually eliminate your free will, but rather physically force you to do what you do not want to do - which is harmful and painful. When God deprives you of free will he takes away your free will entirely.

So God violating someone's will becomes right, even though it would otherwise be wrong? That produces a rather nasty conception of God I would refuse to believe in. — Thorongil

Nope. Creator has different rights than creatures. It would be wrong for a creature to deprive you of your free will, not for God. If it wasn't for God, you wouldn't have had free will to begin with, so what harm is being done if He takes what He gave you in the first place?

You appear to accept the horn of Euthyphro's dilemma that says something is right is because God commands it — Thorongil

Nope.

is that God commands things because they are right. — Thorongil

I believe this.

I believe there is an objective standard of morality. — Thorongil

Same.

If God exists and he is both immutable and goodness itself, then God is the objective standard of morality and he cannot change that which is good. — Thorongil

Sure.

In order for you to maintain your position, you would have to deny that God is immutable or that God is goodness itself — Thorongil

Nope.

That doesn't refute my claim. God can create someone and yet it still be wrong for him to violate that person's will. "I created you, therefore, I can commit wrongdoing against you" sounds like Descartes's evil demon, not God. — Thorongil

That's the Orthodox distinction for example between created and Uncreated. You cannot judge the Uncreated by the same standard you judge the Created. Aquinas doesn't see this very well because his distinction is between natural and super-natural - which doesn't go deep enough. — Agustino

No it doesn't sound like Descartes evil demon. But the standard of what's right and wrong changes. You keep talking about God committing wrong - that would not be wrong.

I would say it's because he can't. Violating the will of his creatures would be wrong, and God cannot commit wrongdoing. — Thorongil

Why is it wrong when God has created them from nothing and wields complete power over them, not having had to create them in the first place? Does God owe something to His creatures or what? :s

That's the Orthodox distinction for example between created and Uncreated. You cannot judge the Uncreated by the same standard you judge the Created. Aquinas doesn't see this very well because his distinction is between natural and super-natural - which doesn't go deep enough.

Why not? — Thorongil

Why would it be? :s I see no necessary contradiction in God breaking the will of human beings. The only reason He does not break it, is because He doesn't want to.

Quite the voluntarist conception of God you have there. Aquinas would not approve.

I don't think God can create a square circles, perform evil, or make 2+2=5, among other impossible things. Perhaps you should tell me what work the word "theoretically" is supposed to be doing, though. — Thorongil

Breaking the free will of his creatures is not logically impossible (like making 2+2=5 is, or creating a stone so heavy that he cannot lift, etc.). And I know Aquinas would not approve, but I hold he's wrong on that ;) :P

I think that would violate his nature, so I don't think he could do this. — Thorongil

Why? Nothing is impossible for God - theoretically. Practically God would not break his creature's free will - but He could do it theoretically.

Click on that abc.net.au link above your post. It's gone viral overnight. Nails it.

It's not the media that's fake. It's the person occupying the office of the Presidency. — Wayfarer

Have you been reactivated by Crooked? The orders arrived in the mailbox or what happened? X-)

Really those passages aren't so hard to deal with, if you just had access to Apostolic Tradition under the guidance of the Church. The Bible was never meant to be read alone or with very little study or guidance.

I don't know if you saw this, but I edited my earlier post and added the following:

Speaking of that, here is another passage in the bible that I have a hard time with, and which seems to suggest just that God refuses to forgive or heal some people: "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them."
John 12:40 — Beebert

God "hardens their hearts" by not breaking their free will. God could force them to believe in Him and thus be saved, but then He would break their freedom of will, and that's not what God is going to do. Thus he "hardens the hearts and blinds the eyes" of unbelievers by allowing them to persist in their sin.

I don't know. God's grace? — Beebert

What does God's grace have to do with their will? God has already fully revealed Himself to them, and they have rejected Him.

You said man's will is free, so obviously, if they still have their memory intact and remember that they have rejected God, they must be able to realize that perhaps it was wrong. — Beebert

Yes, they could realise that perhaps it was wrong if there was any new & relevant knowledge that they could gain access to. But there isn't.

If not else, because of the idea of eternal hell. Not many would like to end up in such a place or state — Beebert

That's false. Many people would like to end up there.

The only thing that would make it impossible for them to change is if God refuses to forgive them. Does he? — Beebert

No.

The fact that they regret their actions and want to be with God? — Beebert

What would cause them to regret their actions? They already know everything there is to know. So there isn't anymore knowledge that they can have - so in the absence of additional knowledge, what can cause them to regret their actions?

But regarding Hebrew 6:4-6 for example; why can't they be forgiven and repent? — Beebert

They cannot repent because what could cause them to repent? If in full knowledge of God they turn against Him, then what can cause them to repent? They already know all the facts, they've tasted of the fruits of heaven, and they still turned against God. What can possibly cause them to repent now? :s

brother. ;) — lambda

sister* :P

Another more recent meditation on a similar theme, which I would strongly recommend to someone like yourself, is A Religion of One's Own: A Guide to Creating a Personal Spirituality in a Secular World, Thomas Moore. — Wayfarer

I think the better approach is to suppose that 'religions', broadly speaking, represent archetypal realities. Such terms as Nirvāṇa or 'the Kingdom of Heaven' represent states of being which the Buddha and Jesus, respectively, wished to communicate to their audiences. One can accept that in quite a naturalistic way, as being a human potential (indeed, it is one of the convictions behind the 'human potential movement') without thereby 'signing the dotted line' to give away all powers of autonomous thought and freedom of will, that is customarily understood as one of the consequences of 'being religious'. — Wayfarer

>:O >:O >:O >:O Do you have your pink flying pony with you Wayfarer? :D A religion of one's own is precisely what a religion is not - a religion involves a community not a random fella who thinks he's spiritual, holds to liberal and progressive politics, reads Eastern books, does drugs, stares at a wall and then goes back to his day to day work :s

Edit: Wow how unexpected, I wrote the above before reading this:

Grew up in a very secular environment, Australia in the 60's, non-religious parents, but went to a Church school. I always felt a basic affinity with the Jesus of the Gospels, but was never particularly drawn to church as such. Because of the times - me being a 'boomer', probably a couple of generations older than yourself - I discovered Eastern thought, which was in the air in those times. I bought many popular Eastern books - Krishnamurti, Paramahansa Yogananda, Swami Vivekananda - all of whom were Eastern spiritual teachers who lived and taught in America. In the end, I decided the Buddhist attitude was the most useful, because of its pragmatism, and because of it's emphasis on meditation practice. (Here's my brief guide to sitting meditation.) But my attitude is syncretist, it draws on various sources, and I still have a strong affinity with Christian Platonism. — Wayfarer

So, an unreasoned reason? Surely there's something rather wrong with that. — Heister Eggcart

How do you know there isn't a reason? Just because God hasn't told it to you doesn't mean you can just infer its absence :s

If God has the power to remedy, he must also have the power to prohibit, yes? — Heister Eggcart

Theoretically, but practically God will not infringe the free will of His creatures.

And honestly, I believe the ideas of Calvin are perhaps the worst ideas ever invented by a man. I can barely come up with anything worse than the idea of a cosmic torturer who decides before the foundation of the world to create human beings only to satisfy his own "glory"(vainglory I would rather say) in terms of displaying his different "attributes" like wrath, justice, "love" etc. Love for the "elect", they say, and that is perhaps 5 percent of the population. — Beebert

Calvin was most likely a heretic with a profound misunderstanding of the Bible, who rejected the authority of the Apostolic tradition.

The God of Job has the sort of personality and communication with its creations that isn't comparable to Jobs like you and me. Again, the circular "logic" here is that one must first have faith in God's existence in order then to have faith in God's will, which really makes no sense at all. — Heister Eggcart

:s you asked about the meaning of the story, and I told you the meaning. This isn't a rebuttal of that meaning. How do you know God doesn't have a personal communication to you? Maybe He does.

Hebrews 6:4-6

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. — Beebert

Sure, I perfectly agree with this. This is referencing people who are fully aware of God's Love, but who nevertheless reject it and turn away from it. How would it be possible for them to turn back (repent) when their own wills refuse to do it?

Hebrews 10:26-29:

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? — Beebert

This means there is no salvation for those who - not only with their minds - but with their hearts deny God - for sin always is a matter of the heart and not of the intellect. All this is saying is that even the death and Resurrection of Jesus cannot help such people, for it is their own will which stops them from accepting the free gift of salvation. They know the truth - so they fully know about the gift of salvation - and yet they refuse it. What can be done? Nothing.

Romans 8

20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30 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.

31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.

38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Whom he did foreknow - God foreknew everyone.

Matthew 13:42

And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. — Beebert

This refers metaphorically to the kingdom of heaven. Yes, those who hate God will find God's love as a furnace of fire, where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth - it is a metaphorical description for the afterlife - a parable.

John 6

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

This is true. It means that without God's revelation, one could not come to God. This is absolutely true. However, note that it also says that ALL shall be taught of God - so all are drawn to the Father. God pursues all men.

Romans 9
I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,

2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.

3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.

10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

11 (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;)

12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15 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.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

17 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.

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20 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?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 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:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.

29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.

30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

What St. Paul is talking about here is the reason why the Jewish people rejected Christ. He was providing an explanation of it, that despite them being Elect - because Israel are the Chosen People - that doesn't mean they will be saved if they refuse the Messiah. The reason for their refusal is their lack of faith, it's not their lack of knowledge of God's Word, as clarified at the end.

Christ's sacrifice 'put an end to all sacrifice' — Wayfarer

This is false under a common reading that equivocates between the two uses of sacrifice. Orthodox believers are supposed to, in English terminology, sacrifice themselves for the good of their community and for God - the same way Christ sacrificed Himself for mankind. So no, Christ did not end this sacrifice.

You are correct that Christ's sacrifice (one sense of the word here) did 'put an end to all sacrifice (different sense of the word here)'. This last sense of the word sacrifice is the one I have been referring to all along. His death wasn't such a sacrifice.

I did, Agustino. Those citations were from http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/10/1.aspx . It is not a matter of equivocation, I am simply citing an authoritative source.

It is the official, online 'Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate', presented in multiple languages. Yet you dismiss it as 'unreliable' because it doesn't suit your argument. Indeed, All of the catechisms of the Orthodox, Catholic, and Anglican religions refer to 'Christ's sacrifice'. — Wayfarer

>:O >:O >:O Good that I see at least you removed your insults from this comment.

No, it's not at all authoritative. The Moscow Patriarchate does not, first of all, represent the Orthodox Church as such, it is only part of the Orthodox Church (and much less does one of its Departments represent the entire Orthodox Church). The Ecumenical councils and synods typically decide on doctrinal matters. And second of all it is:

An Online Orthodox Catechism adopted from ‘The Mystery of Faith’ by Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev

The Mystery of Faith is "A personal commentary on the teaching of the Orthodox Church, its historical development and its relationship to the spiritual life".

Since when for fuck's sake is a personal commentary of a Bishop "authoritative" in terms of Orthodox dogma? As I said, it seems you don't know what you're talking about with regards to Orthodoxy.

Second of all suppose this was perfectly valid (which it clearly is not), "sacrifice" in the way it is used in the text you have presented, has NOTHING to do with the meaning of sacrifice that I had been using from the very beginning in my comments.

To illustrate, I say:

Why is Jesus' death and Resurrection a sacrifice? It is true that Jesus died for our sins (that's why he was killed), but that doesn't mean that it's a sacrificial death. — Agustino

See the bolded bit? If I took sacrifice to hold the meaning of Jesus dying for our sins (or sacrificing Himself for our sins), then I would not deny it - for behold, I affirmed it many posts ago, the same way the "Catechism" you have presented affirms it. But it is very clear that I was referencing the other, older meaning of sacrifice, which is to make something profane into something sacred for the purpose of appeasing the gods.

Now, English does not differentiate between the two meanings of sacrifice with different words. Other languages however do. It's very typical of the Anglo world it seems to think they can know what Orthodoxy teaches with precision by reading a few materials off Google :-}

Now don't take this the wrong way but it is the case with many Western liberals, especially from the 60s hippie generation, to think that understanding something is easy, so they end up having superficial understandings of matters that are actually quite a bit more refined.

I wonder what Serena Williams would think if she knew that a thread started about her on a philosophy forum would end up with a dozen plus pages filled with humongous walls of texts saying nothing of import. — Heister Eggcart

Do you like those walls of text? (L) Or are they too powerful for you?

I will answer your post tomorrow.

the moral of the story amounts to trusting in mystery, which is about as unsubstantial and underwhelming as you can get. — Heister Eggcart

No, the moral of the story actually amounts to something different. That Job is puny and insignificant, and while he's yelling at God, he doesn't understand this. He lifts himself above God thinking that he knows enough to pronounce judgement on God and his creation. This awareness of one's finitude, and more importantly that one doesn't deserve anything to begin with (so what right does Job even have to demand something of the Creator?). The right attitude in front of these limitations is faith - because God knows what is best better than you, with your limited faculties and intelligence do.

If love isn't designed then the necessary ends of love (what you suggest are morally necessary to uphold) become the result of evolutionary dice rolls that have resulted in a random human telos. — VagabondSpectre

Not necessarily, because love may be a basic metaphysical fact of the world, in which case it would not be designed, but it would simply be there.

If someone were born with a physical or mental deformity, then their teleology — VagabondSpectre

A deformed triangle is still a triangle, just like a deformed human person is still a human person, therefore their teleologies are the same. A crooked triangle still shows the form of a triangle, even though quite imperfectly.

if male humans had hardened knuckles and hardened heads that were designed for us to compete by knocking one another out, then according to our teleology it would be a morally necessary end to use the tools we are given toward their intrinsic purpose (one might argue a society based around the numbest skulls would be moral) Morality in this case becomes evolutionary happenstance. (side note: my personal moral position accounts for evolutionary happenstance, but because I found my morality on only the most universally shared values (like the desire to be free from pain and freedom to pursue happiness) they are therefore more common and more applicable (more persuasive to the individual) when considering the outlying dilemmas). — VagabondSpectre

If such was the case, then perhaps our happiness too would revolve around how well we use our hardened heads, so yes, I don't see why not.

People experience love differently, I think that much is clear. People also tend to value it differently given different preexisting psychologies and actual experiences of love. "Love" (the exclusive monogamous and romantic kind) is not actually a universally shared experience or value. Because our feelings toward that specific kind of love differ so much, it becomes very difficult for us to come to agreements about what is morally obligatory when it comes to love (among other things). — VagabondSpectre

Sure, but then differences are never so big such that we don't recognise someone else's description of love, are they? The mere fact we recognise someone else's description as a description of love, shows that our different experiences have commonalities. Furthermore, you're speaking of love in a very narrow sense (simply erotic love), but love is much larger than this, and even erotic love presupposes charity (love of neighbour) - for your beloved is always first your neighbour and only secondly your beloved.

I am making the argument that love is causally linked to the physical brain. — VagabondSpectre

I don't think you can make this argument. This would be a metaphysical, not a physical argument. Love is correlated with the state of the physical brain, that's what we do know scientifically, but to go beyond that would be to overstep the boundaries of science.

Some very compelling evidence comes from degenerative brain diseases which tend to produce drastic and irreversible changes in behavior, up to and including utterly losing the ability to even remember who your spouse is, let alone love them. — VagabondSpectre

And equally compelling evidence comes from people like this man:

It's difficult enough to try and classify something by "function from form" when they exhibit very many and varied (and often contradictory) behaviors and actions, but to even begin by arbitrarily categorizing human functions along "nutritive" and "animal/mind" lines implies that the parts of us which "seek out nutrition" (which lacks an explanation of how) are wholly separated from the parts of us which perform other kinds of functions (like intimacy). This separation in the first place could be the result of a misunderstanding of the underlying causal mechanisms. — VagabondSpectre

Yes, you are correct! But your misunderstanding is in thinking that Aristotelians disagree with you, they don't. Distinctions are matters of the intellect and they don't exist as distinctions in reality. The functions which the intellect takes to be separate are actually one thing in reality.

All you're really saying with "rational soul" is that humans have the ability to think, and the drive to consume energy to say alive, but you're saying nothing about the why and how of these human attributes, so at best it amounts only to a general observation... — VagabondSpectre

Right, but even so, it does not lack scientific evidence, which is what your initial claim was stating. So that claim is false, we can clearly discard it.

I meant that it's not an adequately testable or precise regime of interpreting the differences between objects (and how they change), and it doesn't lead to any predictive power... — VagabondSpectre

The test is simple. Do people have such capacities? If they do, then it is clear. It has a lot of predictive power - we rely on that predictive power even in this discussion. For example on prediction is that you have will and intellect - if you didn't, I wouldn't be trying to have this conversation with you.

Such categorizations can be quite charming but we mustn't forget that these categories are actually just placeholders for actual physical descriptions we do not yet and may never have (or metaphysical one's we'll probably never have). — VagabondSpectre

This is not true. Metaphysical categories, such as forms, aren't just placeholders, they are absolutely essential to give a final account of reality - a metaphysical account - above and beyond physics. Whatever the ultimate level in physics happens to be, we must still account for why that level is such as it is. And to do that, we'll have to make an appeal to its nature - to its form. It simply has such a nature so as to have such properties. If we don't do that, we cannot explain why it does have the properties that it does. And this is true regardless of what ultimate physical constituent we land on.

"matter of different types which have different inherent characteristics and mysterious qualities" — VagabondSpectre

It still is true today - quarks display these mysterious qualities - as does quantum mechanics as well. Why should it behave the way it does rather than another way? It's just as mysterious today.

(describable by fundamental and elementary particles/forces) — VagabondSpectre

This is actually false. It has never been described by fundamental and elementary particles. Physicists think it can IN PRINCIPLE be so described, but it has never actually been done.

As far as I understand what animates the body is not "the powers given to it by the rational soul" but rather that the body animates itself (describable by fundamental and elementary particles/forces) — VagabondSpectre

Clearly it's not just the body, because the same body can also be a dead body, which is not animated at all. So something - the form - which we would describe via a process in the brain most likely - is so responsible.

As far as I understand it, a human thought is the result of networks of neurons firing in sequence: it's bio-chemical/mechanical. — VagabondSpectre

This is false. You cannot assert a causal link based purely on correlation. For all you know, idealism could be the case, and everything is thought, and indeed then neurons firing in sequence are the result of thought (though not of your thought, or conscious thought that is)

Stopping at "will/desire and intellect/creativity" or "love" as fundamental or elementary parts instead of going deeper with science seems primitive to me. — VagabondSpectre

Nobody stopped at them as fundamental at all.

The answer to choosing robust premises is to apply doubt to them and test them in every conceivable way. — VagabondSpectre

Ok, I feel this is very important. Doubt presupposes a different set of premises, so this doesn't work. If I have statement A, I cannot just doubt it. To doubt it I need to first believe statement B, which is contrary to A or an implication of A, and then I will start having GROUNDS TO DOUBT. Without grounds to doubt, my doubt is irrational.

Usually premises themselves have supporting arguments, and so attacking the premises of the argument supporting one of your chosen premises can also be an effective way of falsifying premises. — VagabondSpectre

But those supporting arguments will ultimately also be composed of premises, just like the main argument is correct? So what use? We'll still have to return to some premises which are totally unsupported by anything else, except our PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. If we don't, then we'll have an infinite regress of premises, backed by arguments which are supported by other premises, which are backed by argument, ad infinitum. Sextus Empiricus proved this clearly in his Outlines of Pyrrhonism, and Plato and Aristotle were well aware of it, that's why their main question was how to come to correct premises.

Strictly speaking, the premises of an argument don't "contain" their conclusion, but are rather indicate or point to that conclusion (sometimes via probability, sometimes via necessity). — VagabondSpectre

It can never be by probability, since the conclusion must necessarily follow from the premises to be valid.

If a single premise contains a conclusion, then it's circular logic, and really what should be considered is the argument for the premise in the first place. — VagabondSpectre

Agreed.

When we get down to fundamental premises though (premises with no traditional logic behind them, such as the premises underlying logic itself) (let's call them brute facts) they're really only as good as they are demonstrably inviolable. — VagabondSpectre

This isn't so simple, because what counts as being violable must be determined, via an argument as well.

The existence of gravity is a good example of a starting assumption whose underlying argument involves simply observing it bunch of times and becoming confident that the phenomenon of gravity is reliably and consistently existent. — VagabondSpectre

:s gravity would in no way count as a first principle.

The best fundamental premises are those premises which are very easy to falsify, but despite all attempts remain un-falsified. — VagabondSpectre

Is this premise easy to falsify as well?

Yes, but it might also be worth noting that anything we call "good" can be also considered "not good" by someone with different standards of quality or even decency. A good doctor from WW1 is a butcher by today's standards who wouldn't be qualified to treat a horse. A "good" performer for example is hard to justify on any objectively measurable quality other than how successfully they entertain people, but the problem there is that different types of people might be highly entertained by a given performance, and a different crowd might be entirely offended by it. We should keep this subjective nuance to the word "good" in mind going forward. — VagabondSpectre

There is no subjectivity in the meaning of it though. The WW1 good doctor is "bad" only in reference to the better doctor of today. But what it means to be a good doctor - to be good at healing, never changes so long as the terms are understood.

Sure, but what if we disagree about what is "moral" and how might we come to moral agreement? — VagabondSpectre

Okay, so it seems that so far you agree that we describe something as good if does its function well, and a moral man is a good man. Thus to determine what a moral man is would be equivalent to determine what a good man is. So, since we appeal to the function of a thing/person to determine whether they are good in a certain context (like for the watch, hairdresser, doctor, etc.) it seems quite intuitive that we should appeal to a man's function in order to determine whether he is a good or a bad man, and thus whether he is moral or immoral. But in the past, you were quite obnoxious about morality being dependent on teleology, in multiple instances, here's one of them:

And finally comes the assumption that the telelogical hierarchy of necessary ends of these realities constitutes a sound basis for objective moral reasoning. This is just bullshit predicated on bullshit... — VagabondSpectre

You even called it bullshit, but it seems to be quite reasonable now. You seemed to say that we can't establish what man's ends/functions are, which may be true, but that doesn't invalidate the claim that morality must be based on teleology (if it is to be based on anything at all), which we have just shown to be true. So by your own words now you admit that it isn't bullshit at all, and it's not a silly assumption to make at all, but quite the contrary, it is dictated by the very logic we have so far pursued. So I think you should retract that statement.

but again keep in mind that what people consider to be "good doctor" qualities can differ drastically. — VagabondSpectre

We weren't discussing about their qualities now.

You're telling me to prove that X does not exist (or that there is no evidence for X) in order to justify my exclamation that I see no reason/evidence to believe in X (or for you to provide evidence for X). — VagabondSpectre

No, this isn't what I asked you to retract. I asked you to retract your definite statement that there is no evidence. Not that you do not see that there is any evidence. That is an entirely different thing.

One thing that is important in this discussion if it is to be productive is that we each stick with what we have said. If we start moving goal posts, and changing what we say, etc. we'll get nowhere. You said something, and we've just shown that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If you meant something else, that's all fine and good, but you must agree to retract what you first said.

We understand what hearts are and what hearts do with much more fully than we understand what humans are and how/why they do what they do. — VagabondSpectre

Sure!

The reason we should refrain from defining "the final causes" of humans is because we understand ourselves so poorly and the reality of our complexity is quite beyond us. — VagabondSpectre

Well that depends. Is morality important for human beings? If it is, then we better make an effort to define our final causes, because as we have shown, to be moral we have to know our final causes and direct ourselves towards them. Even an inkling of an idea, a hypothesis, is better than nothing, for at least it will enable us to act in a certain way which may take us closer to our goal.

Shared experience... — VagabondSpectre

Well this is very quaint, because if we are to go by shared experience, then I think we'll have to conclude the very opposite of what you do in fact conclude. As I have illustrated, most large societies that have ever lived have been quite conservative with their sexual norms - certainly more conservative than we are today. So if we are to go by shared experience, then we should not only prioritise today, but the whole of human history. And if we do, then you'll remark that the number of large civilisations (to take into account population) which have held to conservative sexual standards, far outweighs the opposite. Sure, there were tribes here and there who lived nude, and who didn't think casual sex immoral. But then virtually all the large religions of today have a very conservative sexual morality, and we're talking even atheistic religions like Buddhism now. So if we are to take mankind's experience as a whole, I'm afraid we'll have to conclude that casual sex is immoral.

I might have trouble persuading you than something is not harmful (promiscuity and sex) due to some extra beliefs that you hold, but I reckon I would have no trouble persuading you that something IS harmful per my own moral beliefs. In my moral reasoning I try to only use the most universally shared positions as starting points (the most brute-fact realities of the human condition), and from there if I use good reasoning then I wind up with very persuasive and agreeable moral arguments and positions. The fact that both you and I want to be free from the oppression of others is simple but powerful, and as a starting moral value stands on it's own like a brute fact that cannot be disagreed with. With this idea alone we could tear down a tyrannical monarchy and contrive a system of governance, by us and for us, in pursuit of a system which promotes freedom of the individual while also seeking to protect them harm done to them by others (including the new government itself). — VagabondSpectre

This is all fine and good, but it would of course depend on what you mean by being free of oppression. I do want to be free of oppression, but what I consider oppression may not be oppression to you, and inversely, what you consider oppression may not be oppression to me. So it's still not very simple, even though we do agree fundamentally that we want to be free of oppression - but what we mean by this is actually different, and our superficial agreement would only hide this.

I eagerly await your argument that demonstrates the moral importance/necessity of adhering to teleological final causes in the first place... — VagabondSpectre

Ah, but it seems you yourself have argued for this better than I could!

It's actually incorrect to think that individual genes do anything specific and necessary (in fact, "genetic markers" are vast swaths of individual base pairs in DNA which more or less work together - somehow - to achieve more complex results down-the causal line). The best we can currently do is to look at the prevalence (recurrence) of specific genetic markers in the overall code of an individual and make correlation based assumptions about what those genes might actually have some influence over (we're beginning to get at the first steps of "how" but we're no where close to bringing it full circle to "here's it's range of possible behaviors"). The trouble is that these genetic markers in all likelihood influence many things and in many different ways (through spurious and hidden factors we don't yet understand), and layers of complexity we cannot consciously grasp, and this lack of understanding renders us only able to make approximate guesses about what final/necessary effects a higher and lower prevalence of specific genetic markers actually have. It's actually a good analogy that demonstrates the pitfalls of assuming discrete categories and functions of things without understanding the full scope of how they actually interact and behave. — VagabondSpectre

Indeed, but we have managed to isolate genes, and determine that certain genes for example lead to higher risks of certain diseases.

Anyway, going back to the initial statement:

The assumption that humans have a "rational soul" is not proven or scientific. Dividing this unproven soul into the "animal" and "vegetative" is an unsubstantiated extension of just assuming "rational souls" exist in the first place (regardless of how vague I might object the terms to be). Then comes the arbitrary moral value assumption that says the "vegetative" is more morally valuable than the "animal". And finally comes the assumption that the telelogical hierarchy of necessary ends of these realities constitutes a sound basis for objective moral reasoning. This is just bullshit predicated on bullshit... — VagabondSpectre

It seems we have gone through everything, apart from why some ends are more valuable than others, more precisely why the ends belonging to the rational part of the soul are more valuable than the ends belonging to the animal part of the soul. This is a relatively minor point granted that we've gone past the two bigger hurdles, but that's what we'll discuss next.

Hence the rest of that sentence you quoted. — Thorongil

Indeed, I actually misread your sentence, my apologies. That's what happens when there's a lot to reply to :( lol

Of course I have read Job. I ask you to try to get deeper in to the psychology of the text and not just read it on the surface of its plane meaning sensu proprio. Read the ending of Job. God then turns to the other friends and blames them for having said wrong things about him while Job was telling the truth. That is what he said. I interpret that as meaning "Suffering has no meaning". Or perhaps you and I understand it completely different, but to me it is seems quite obvious. — Beebert

I view God's rebukes in the same light - he is rebuking people who think they know what they're talking about instead of being humble and admit to human limitations.

Passages that disturbe me? All the passages in the gospels that speak about the unforgivable sin. I think it is in either Mark 3 or Matthew 12 that Jesus says that he who blasphemes the spirit never has forgiveness/shall never be forgiven but is guilty of an eternal sin. — Beebert

Well we've already gone over that, and I explained what the Unforgiveable Sin is, and also why it is unforgiveable. It is not because God will not forgive it, but rather because the person in question does not want to be forgiven, and God will respect their free will.

I also have problems with ALL the passages that speak about election. There are plenty in the gospels. Others than that, out of the top of my head, I have problems with Romans 8 and 9. And Hebrews 6, 10 and 12 or 13. — Beebert

Okay, please take the time to quote specific instances. Not just Hebrews 6, I want the verses you're referring to.

They claim that this is the proof that when it was 6000 since Adam was created and 2000 since Christ died, he will return. — Beebert

They are stupid, and they should be ashamed of themselves if you want to know the truth. They think they can know the mind of God :s Give me a break.

One can speculate that such might be the case, but to say so definitely is the sign of stupidity. And I for one don't think such is the case - there is nothing in the Bible to showcase this.

Did you read the fine print of what Wayfarer was describing as "myth" here? — Noble Dust

Which "fine print" are you talking about? :s

Honestly, my interpretation of Job is that God says "You are right". Right in what? That suffering has NO meaning. — Beebert

Sorry, but have you actually read Job? I know many people on the internet say that, but have you read the actual text?

1 Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:
2 “Who is this that obscures my plans
with words without knowledge?
3 Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?
8 “Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,
9 when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,
10 when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,
11 when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt’?
12 “Have you ever given orders to the morning,
or shown the dawn its place,
13 that it might take the earth by the edges
and shake the wicked out of it?
14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal;
its features stand out like those of a garment.
15 The wicked are denied their light,
and their upraised arm is broken.
16 “Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea
or walked in the recesses of the deep?
17 Have the gates of death been shown to you?
Have you seen the gates of the deepest darkness?
18 Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?
Tell me, if you know all this.
19 “What is the way to the abode of light?
And where does darkness reside?
20 Can you take them to their places?
Do you know the paths to their dwellings?
21 Surely you know, for you were already born!
You have lived so many years!
22 “Have you entered the storehouses of the snow
or seen the storehouses of the hail,
23 which I reserve for times of trouble,
for days of war and battle?
24 What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed,
or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth?
25 Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain,
and a path for the thunderstorm,
26 to water a land where no one lives,
an uninhabited desert,
27 to satisfy a desolate wasteland
and make it sprout with grass?
28 Does the rain have a father?
Who fathers the drops of dew?
29 From whose womb comes the ice?
Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens
30 when the waters become hard as stone,
when the surface of the deep is frozen?
31 “Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades?
Can you loosen Orion’s belt?
32 Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons
or lead out the Bear with its cubs?
33 Do you know the laws of the heavens?
Can you set up God’s dominion over the earth?
34 “Can you raise your voice to the clouds
and cover yourself with a flood of water?
35 Do you send the lightning bolts on their way?
Do they report to you, ‘Here we are’?
36 Who gives the ibis wisdom
or gives the rooster understanding?
37 Who has the wisdom to count the clouds?
Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens
38 when the dust becomes hard
and the clods of earth stick together?
39 “Do you hunt the prey for the lioness
and satisfy the hunger of the lions
40 when they crouch in their dens
or lie in wait in a thicket?
41 Who provides food for the raven
when its young cry out to God
and wander about for lack of food?
39 “Do you know when the mountain goats give birth?
Do you watch when the doe bears her fawn?
2 Do you count the months till they bear?
Do you know the time they give birth?
3 They crouch down and bring forth their young;
their labor pains are ended.
4 Their young thrive and grow strong in the wilds;
they leave and do not return.
5 “Who let the wild donkey go free?
Who untied its ropes?
6 I gave it the wasteland as its home,
the salt flats as its habitat.
7 It laughs at the commotion in the town;
it does not hear a driver’s shout.
8 It ranges the hills for its pasture
and searches for any green thing.
9 “Will the wild ox consent to serve you?
Will it stay by your manger at night?
10 Can you hold it to the furrow with a harness?
Will it till the valleys behind you?
11 Will you rely on it for its great strength?
Will you leave your heavy work to it?
12 Can you trust it to haul in your grain
and bring it to your threshing floor?
13 “The wings of the ostrich flap joyfully,
though they cannot compare
with the wings and feathers of the stork.
14 She lays her eggs on the ground
and lets them warm in the sand,
15 unmindful that a foot may crush them,
that some wild animal may trample them.
16 She treats her young harshly, as if they were not hers;
she cares not that her labor was in vain,
17 for God did not endow her with wisdom
or give her a share of good sense.
18 Yet when she spreads her feathers to run,
she laughs at horse and rider.
19 “Do you give the horse its strength
or clothe its neck with a flowing mane?
20 Do you make it leap like a locust,
striking terror with its proud snorting?
21 It paws fiercely, rejoicing in its strength,
and charges into the fray.
22 It laughs at fear, afraid of nothing;
it does not shy away from the sword.
23 The quiver rattles against its side,
along with the flashing spear and lance.
24 In frenzied excitement it eats up the ground;
it cannot stand still when the trumpet sounds.
25 At the blast of the trumpet it snorts, ‘Aha!’
It catches the scent of battle from afar,
the shout of commanders and the battle cry.
26 “Does the hawk take flight by your wisdom
and spread its wings toward the south?
27 Does the eagle soar at your command
and build its nest on high?
28 It dwells on a cliff and stays there at night;
a rocky crag is its stronghold.
29 From there it looks for food;
its eyes detect it from afar.
30 Its young ones feast on blood,
and where the slain are, there it is.”
40 The Lord said to Job:

2 “Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?
Let him who accuses God answer him!”
3 Then Job answered the Lord:

4 “I am unworthy—how can I reply to you?
I put my hand over my mouth.
5 I spoke once, but I have no answer—
twice, but I will say no more.”
6 Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm:

7 “Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
8 “Would you discredit my justice?
Would you condemn me to justify yourself?
9 Do you have an arm like God’s,
and can your voice thunder like his?
10 Then adorn yourself with glory and splendor,
and clothe yourself in honor and majesty.
11 Unleash the fury of your wrath,
look at all who are proud and bring them low,
12 look at all who are proud and humble them,
crush the wicked where they stand.
13 Bury them all in the dust together;
shroud their faces in the grave.
14 Then I myself will admit to you
that your own right hand can save you.
15 “Look at Behemoth,
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.
16 What strength it has in its loins,
what power in the muscles of its belly!
17 Its tail sways like a cedar;
the sinews of its thighs are close-knit.
18 Its bones are tubes of bronze,
its limbs like rods of iron.
19 It ranks first among the works of God,
yet its Maker can approach it with his sword.
20 The hills bring it their produce,
and all the wild animals play nearby.
21 Under the lotus plants it lies,
hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
22 The lotuses conceal it in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround it.
23 A raging river does not alarm it;
it is secure, though the Jordan should surge against its mouth.
24 Can anyone capture it by the eyes,
or trap it and pierce its nose?
41 “Can you pull in Leviathan with a fishhook
or tie down its tongue with a rope?
2 Can you put a cord through its nose
or pierce its jaw with a hook?
3 Will it keep begging you for mercy?
Will it speak to you with gentle words?
4 Will it make an agreement with you
for you to take it as your slave for life?
5 Can you make a pet of it like a bird
or put it on a leash for the young women in your house?
6 Will traders barter for it?
Will they divide it up among the merchants?
7 Can you fill its hide with harpoons
or its head with fishing spears?
8 If you lay a hand on it,
you will remember the struggle and never do it again!
9 Any hope of subduing it is false;
the mere sight of it is overpowering.
10 No one is fierce enough to rouse it.
Who then is able to stand against me?
11 Who has a claim against me that I must pay?
Everything under heaven belongs to me.
12 “I will not fail to speak of Leviathan’s limbs,
its strength and its graceful form.
13 Who can strip off its outer coat?
Who can penetrate its double coat of armor?
14 Who dares open the doors of its mouth,
ringed about with fearsome teeth?
15 Its back has rows of shields
tightly sealed together;
16 each is so close to the next
that no air can pass between.
17 They are joined fast to one another;
they cling together and cannot be parted.
18 Its snorting throws out flashes of light;
its eyes are like the rays of dawn.
19 Flames stream from its mouth;
sparks of fire shoot out.
20 Smoke pours from its nostrils
as from a boiling pot over burning reeds.
21 Its breath sets coals ablaze,
and flames dart from its mouth.
22 Strength resides in its neck;
dismay goes before it.
23 The folds of its flesh are tightly joined;
they are firm and immovable.
24 Its chest is hard as rock,
hard as a lower millstone.
25 When it rises up, the mighty are terrified;
they retreat before its thrashing.
26 The sword that reaches it has no effect,
nor does the spear or the dart or the javelin.
27 Iron it treats like straw
and bronze like rotten wood.
28 Arrows do not make it flee;
slingstones are like chaff to it.
29 A club seems to it but a piece of straw;
it laughs at the rattling of the lance.
30 Its undersides are jagged potsherds,
leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge.
31 It makes the depths churn like a boiling caldron
and stirs up the sea like a pot of ointment.
32 It leaves a glistening wake behind it;
one would think the deep had white hair.
33 Nothing on earth is its equal—
a creature without fear.
34 It looks down on all that are haughty;
it is king over all that are proud." — Book of Job 38-41

The impression I get from this answer is quite different. God doesn't tell Job that he is right, and suffering has no meaning. God tells Job that his entire protestation is vain and meaningless, since Job cannot possibly hope to comprehend God, and he has no right at all to tell God what is good and what is bad. Job must just play his role - he has no capacity to raise himself above God and dare to question God. God is Creator, He alone decides what is Right and Good. God shames Job by testing his knowledge, and showing how puny and insignificant it is - how insignificant Job ultimately is. And Job understands it - he understands that he must have faith in God, because God knows better than he himself knows what is good.

God really says is: "You sit there miserable because of your own suffering? Look around you. I screwed everything up!". — Beebert

I don't see this in the text. On the contrary, God says He didn't screw anything up.

God wanted me to exist. Why? — Beebert

I don't know, but I'm sure He must have a purpose.

Suicide is condemned in christianity(perhaps not in orthodoxy) as the worst of all sins. That too I can not accept. — Beebert

Why can't you accept it? And it's not condemned as the worst of sins, it's just a sin. Suicide isn't the unforgiveable sin.

The sheperd of Hermas was even considered as canonical scripture by many of the church fathers, such as Irenaeus and Origen. It is contained within The Apostolic Fathers, so it has mighty importance. — Beebert

Bullshit. One Church father considering something canonical doesn't mean it really is. There's a reason why it's not in the Bible. Synods and Ecumenical Councils decide such matters, not lonely church fathers...

Because in Scripture I find 25 places that speaks about election, and 5-6 places that talks about predestination. I also find a horrifying text from Paul in Romans 9 where he talks about how God creates some people in order to destroy them. And in Hebrews I find the same teaching as in the Sheperd of Hermas; those who fall away can never be forgiven, even if they want to. — Beebert

Please quote specific passages which disturb you. You don't have to quote 25. Give me 5 of the most disturbing ones according to you.

Well, then it seems like I have committed it. — Beebert

Impossible, if you had committed it, you wouldn't be agonising over it. People who commit the unforgiveable sin don't commit it only with their minds, but rather with their HEARTS - they hate God and goodness so much that they perceive evil to be good, and good to be evil. It's not an easy thing to do. You will never accidentally commit this sin - there is no such thing.

How does that corresponds to scriptural words such as "punishment", "wrath", "vengeance", "retribution" etc? — Beebert

Perfectly! People who hate God will experience it as "wrath", "vengeance", etc.

"Love others and I will love you. Believe in Christ's sacrifice, and I will love you wretched sinner. Not because I love you really, but because I love my son. Now. Go love all your neighbours and enemies. If you don't I will cast you in that lake of fire along with your enemies." — Beebert

That's just false. Jesus Christ wouldn't have accepted to come to Earth, be mocked, humiliated, and killed by undeserving twats if He didn't love us.

Even if you would experience God as Satan, why can't you be forgiven? — Beebert

You can be forgiven, if you WANT to be forgiven, but if you get to that stage, then you don't want to be forgiven anymore.

Nothing is supposed to be impossible with God. — Beebert

Nothing is impossible for God, that's absolutely true, however God doesn't want to break you free will - that's His decision. If you freely decide that you prefer hell to heaven, that's where you shall go! God will not stop you.

"Shall never be forgiven" it says. Why — Beebert

Give me the full quote with context please.

Nothing in my life has made me so miserable and suicidal as the belief in the Christian God. — Beebert

Yes, that's because you have the wrong idea of God. God doesn't want to punish you, or anyone. The history of man is the history of the FLIGHT FROM GOD - man is desperately running away from God, and God is in full pursuit of man because He loves him. It's not God that punishes man, but rather man that punishes himself.

You said most christians would NOT agree that non-christians go to hell? hmm... That is not what I have seen. — Beebert

Then they are wrong. The Scriptures do not say that men have the authority or the wisdom to decide or state with certainty who goes to hell and who doesn't. It seems you want to make yourself God and have authority over what happens - you think your intellect is sufficiently powerful to know these things - that's absolute foolishness. Know your own finitude!

If I walk on the street thinking that the majority of the people there will go to hell (The gate is narrow as Christ says), then I get a panic attack. — Beebert

Yeah, well why do you think that? Do you think you're capable to decipher what is in all those people's hearts, and see whether they will go to heaven or hell? Only God knows such matters.

I was at a psychiatric hospital for a month because of this horrendous belief. It drove me to madness. I can't take it anymore. Show me the goodness of christianity. I can't find it anymore. — Beebert

You have the wrong belief. You believe God wants to punish you and mankind for our sins. You believe God had to sacrifice His Son, otherwise He could not forgive you, unless there was blood, because He is a Just God. Perhaps Scripture should then have said that God is Justice. But it didn't - it said God is Love. God's Love and Mercy are greater than His Justice. Jesus Christ died for your sins so that you could be purified and join God in union with Him. Jesus's death and Resurrection was performed in order to make man divine.

Do we cast blame on him [God] because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods? Although God has adopted this course out of his pure benevolence, that no one may charge him with discrimination or stinginess, he declares, "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the Most High." ... For it was necessary at first that nature be exhibited, then after that what was mortal would be conquered and swallowed up in immortality — Irenaeus

For the Son of God became man so that we might become God. — St. Athanasius

[T]he Word of God became man, that thou mayest learn from man how man may become God — Clement of Alexandria

Since the God who was manifested infused Himself into perishable humanity for this purpose, viz. that by this communion with Deity mankind might at the same time be deified, for this end it is that, by dispensation of His grace, He disseminated Himself in every believer — St. Gregory of Nyssa

A sure warrant for looking forward with hope to deification of human nature is provided by the Incarnation of God, which makes man God to the same degree as God Himself became man ... . Let us become the image of the one whole God, bearing nothing earthly in ourselves, so that we may consort with God and become gods, receiving from God our existence as gods. For it is clear that He Who became man without sin will divinize human nature without changing it into the Divine Nature, and will raise it up for His Own sake to the same degree as He lowered Himself for man's sake. This is what St[.] Paul teaches mystically when he says, '[]that in the ages to come he might display the overflowing richness of His grace' — St. Maximus the Confessor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinization_(Christian)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis_(Eastern_Christian_theology)
For more.

Regarding if I have the wisdom to say whether what God did was good or bad: He has given me the capacity to see what I see. And the conclusions I make of what he has revealed to me is that the world is a catastrophic mess. — Beebert

Yes, that is indeed what you think. But the capacities you have are minuscule and insignificant. How dare you pretend to know that it is catastrophic? What is 1000 years to God? Nothing. You don't even know what will happen tomorrow, much less 10,000 years from now. Your intellectual powers should tell you first and foremost that they are weak and incapable to see very far.

Is Jehovah in the old testament the God of Jesus? Of course he is — Beebert

Yes, He absolutely is.

Do you find the God who slaughtered the Amalekites, who wanted to stone homosexuals and women who had lost their virginity before their wedding to be Love? — Beebert

Yes, I actually do. And by the way, these are mostly misrepresentations. Women caught in adultery were meant to be stoned ALONG WITH THE MAN only if there were witnesses to the act itself. This is part of the Covenant made with the Jewish people, and it wasn't meant to be eternal - these were rules that were to be applied only during that time, which was a very difficult time for the Jewish people. You should read this book:

https://www.amazon.com/God-Behaving-Badly-Testament-Sexist/dp/0830838260

By the way, what you're spouting off isn't even Christianity, it's tradition. You're encountering the tradition of men, not actual Apostolic Tradition, the writings of the Saints, and Scripture. Many of the things most people think they know about Christianity are actually completely false.

The only way to find out would be to commit suicide — Thorongil

Except, if there is no afterlife, you'd find out nothing :P

Which was: — Wayfarer

the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross was not a sacrifice — Agustino

I think you're not quite aware of this Wayfarer, but sacrifice involves the sanctification of something that is profane. Sacrificium in Latin literarily means to make something sacred. — Agustino

No it was not a sacrifice if you bother to read my definition. I can't believe that you're insisting on equivocating on the word. Yes it seems that the English language does not distinguish between different meanings of sacrifice as well as other languages do.

I quoted the Catechism of the Orthodox Church — Wayfarer

No you haven't. It seems that you don't quite understand how Orthodoxy works, nor do you get that the English term sacrifice has two different meanings, which are actually two different words in some of the Eastern languages.

which states that it is a sacrifice — Wayfarer

Yes, in a very different sense than what you mean by sacrifice, and what was originally meant by sacrifice.

s Joseph Campbell well knew, myths are metaphors, often for truths that can't be told directly. — Wayfarer

Christianity is not a myth, as I've explained to you in the other thread.

Your objection is to specific forms of 'atonement theory'. I already said that the Orthodox churches don't believe in the doctrine of vicarious atonement. — Wayfarer

No, my objection is to the meaning of sacrifice I described in my first post on this subject:

I think you're not quite aware of this Wayfarer, but sacrifice involves the sanctification of something that is profane. Sacrificium in Latin literarily means to make something sacred. — Agustino

This meaning is not the Christian meaning of it.

Which is the sense in which I referred to it, and what I think it means, and what I believe you are denying. — Wayfarer

Right, but this wasn't the sense I referred to in the post where I said to say that Jesus Christ is a sacrifice is heretical. As I had clarified in the previous post, I was dealing with the old meaning of sacrifice, which involves appeasing the gods, etc.

I didn't define the articles of the Christian faith. When young, I went to a Church school, and we were taught about 'Christ's sacrifice', which is what Christianity revolves around. So it's not my job to explain the articles of faith to you. — Wayfarer

Well do you believe those articles of faith? If so, then yes, I would expect you to explain them.