True enough.

Post #45,776 by tseliot 7/16/02 12:11:32 PM Reply	True enough. 'Taint "love" if'n it's done in fear of consequences of Not. Right. I love Him because He made a universe in which I could be more than a robot. The fact that some people would rather He didn't, doesn't change that fact. All the "sadism" hand-waving just tells me you want (or believe to exist) one of the following: 1. A universe where there is no God. 2. A universe where there is no choice. 3. A universe where there is no consequence. Choice demands boundaries, rewards, and consequences. The fact that the Biblical God bound all those factors into a contractual relationship with His people seems to be the sticking-point for you? Or is it that the consequences are irrevocable (ie - death)? Quite frankly, I wouldn't give a tinker's damn about the consequences if they weren't final, and neither would anyone else; "I'll just recant on my death-bed," right? --------------------------------- Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance - Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation. BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10
Post #45,827 by Ashton 7/16/02 9:08:31 PM Reply	Sorry,___ but those are Boolean options.____Again. The idea of a "personal + personally-Interested-in Moi! God" is, I opine: an entirely homo-sap contrivance. Pretty much a Christian one, especially in the absurd detail! of the humanoid-'personality' always assigned to God by all Christian sects. If you like Cosmic Rulez n'such (?) here is a much Older Principle, not claimed to "emanate via direct verbal transmission from a Him, Her or Other nameable Entity", but a necessary Part of any concept of there being 'higher/lower' states, actualities? of "Beingness". (Reality similarly.. is reserved for that which is 'timeless, never-changing' ie. about Something we know Zilch about 'here') Here's the Principle sort-of, since such matters Always suffer in language, with all its necessary referents to commonplace things: The Absolute is without attributes - ie NO QUALITIES may be imagined then 'assigned' to this unKnowable ____ which is beyond: 1) Quantization 2) Being / Nonbeing 3) Time (!) and all our hazy concepts within a world of merely apparent opposites and merely apparent ... 'passage of events' ie our World of Duality. 4) Any Other 'quality' homo-sap imagines and loves to project Upwards. (not limited merely to the idea of gender! but all the rest too, including human stimulus/response to emotion, "desire for worship" etc.) Thus your 3 Choices lie squarely within these Imaginations; derive from the fear we have of Not Knowing whence we came, 'when' we leave nor - what the idea of 'death' connotes. All this stuff presumes.. that I. Am. ... this body? and presumes much else. There are quite Other ways to view this-all and to allow for the UnKnowable without 'deciding' matters inexorably beyond our capacity to Know. Nothing 'wrong' with enjoying your personal choice. Simply though, whenever "one of Yours" edges over into Revealed Truth => Solely Possessed by Moi & Mine and Not.. V\ufffdtres! you will hear from Others, and hear about 'explanations' quite prior to 0 AD.. many of which are folded-in to your dogma, and claimed as revelation or Revelation. Lots of these! Clear(er)? Ashton I Am That I Am was Good! then the human-embellishment began.. As did the Corporations... corpore sano / body / etc. The ongoing Warz were inevitable. And still are. Each homo-sap ego just Must be Right-eous. We will kill to Prove our Righteousness. QED
Post #45,892 by tseliot 7/17/02 2:10:07 PM Reply	Then I expect you to be consistent. The Absolute is without attributes Next time CR snipes at God because of his "attributes" I expect you to rail at him as much as you do me. Until then, I expect you to stop talking on subjects which you feel are unknowable. --------------------------------- Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance - Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation. BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10
Post #45,910 by Ashton 7/17/02 4:19:58 PM Reply	Fair enough. And whether it's CRC or Jerry Foulwell - same deal. And I do not talk 'on' subjects which are unknowable - I talk about the frequent, one might say prevalent? imaginations that they are knowable. I believe that is an important distinction. Ashton

Welcome to IWETHEY!