welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

would u sell ur soul?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Inept Villain



Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 42
Location: A place of unending, horrifying mediocrity.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sojobo wrote:

Your first post mentioned the Sinfest Devil specifically, but it looked like just an example within a response to Mellowfish, which made me assume that you were talking about the "real" "Christian" Devil.

In your later post, you seem to mix which you are talking about quite freely. I do not know how to answer you when your topic is shifting so often.

It was my intention to establish a notable separation between the two devils in question so that I could analyze them better. I see how well that worked out. As in, it didn’t.
I apologize for jumping around so much, that’s just the way my brain works. I’ll never make a good story teller, because I don’t always link ideas together in a linear way.

Sojobo wrote:

Within this framework, the Devil is responsible for Hell, and your thought about its use as a fear tactic furthering God's agenda is reasonable, though I would still disagree with it, because God uses handpuppets to make jokes. He seems utterly unconcerned with people "bowing down" to Him. I don't know where you find the "agenda" you are attributing to Him.

The Sinfest God seems more than plain unconcerned with seeing people bow down to him. He seems unconcerned with them entirely, apart from the distant fatherly reminder that he loves humanity. Also, he actually talks with them. Sinfest God seems really laid back, is what I imply. Not uncaring. Observing him in any random comic, he appears almost bored and is merely amusing himself in odd ways. Sinfest God is closer to the Deist version than any other, I think. Seems to me as though he’s just killing time until creation ends, by goofing off. He created everything, and, well… he’s quite finished. Kick back time. The one thing he seems to take even remotely serious is the Devil, and that’s only to smack the fiend down (most often verbally) when he gets too uppity.
How can you not know what agenda I’m talking about, when you referred to it yourself? I realize that I did not separate my ideas exceedingly well, but I was referring to the non-cartoon christian God in regards to the “agenda.” The agenda in question is more of a mortal institution than a divine one, because I do not believe in God. The agenda is the recruitment of the gullible and those individuals who are susceptible to what are, essentially, emotional placebos. Granted, I support anyone who wants to pursue whatever faith they find most appealing. More power to them. Whatever makes you happy. I disapprove of using tactics which turn people into good “God Fearing” folk, however. Hell is the best example of the low cunning which is employed by the church. Telling someone they will suffer eternally (not just for awhile. Forever.) if they do not follow a particular set of beliefs is downright malicious. I dunno. It just seems wrong to me. I can’t work up enough hatred for my fellow human beings to want them to suffer eternally, regardless of their beliefs. Eternally? Sheesh. That’s harsh.
Then again, I have been told time and again that the true suffering to be endured is not being with God because you turned your back on him. That is a load of crap, but okay… we’ll address that. If the only torment involved is being separated from the almighty self-loving God, then what exactly is hell, if not a black pit of doom in which God chucks all the puny humans who displease him? It still sounds like a bum deal, if you ask me.

Sojobo wrote:

Unless you are talking about Seymour, who does use Hell as a fear tactic, but we know Seymour is ridiculous (God describes him as a loony fanboy).

Seymour wouldn’t be nearly as funny if he was a genuine parody. While Sinfest God rolls his eyes at Seymour for his fanatical devotion, I was under the impression that the christian God would give him the dual thumbs up. Aren’t Seymour’s values precisely what christians look to attain? I don’t mean to say that christians are exactly like Seymour, who is an obsessive fan boy in nature, but the principles to which he holds himself to seem accurate enough to me. The only difference is Seymour takes them to humorous extremes. Then again it could be that I am completely wrong. This is just how it looks from my angle of perception.

Sojobo wrote:

I'm not intending this as rude, but your thoughts about being with God aren't really important when you were questioning the Christian view of how things work. Cutting out a section of the worldview and substituting your own would mean you are no longer discussing Christianity but some wierd bastardized semi-Christianity.

It's all groovy, man. I know you're not out to demean me. It's less obvious from my side of things, but I have unwavering respect for you as well. I'm irreverant and antagonistic towards ideas, but you? We coo'.
So, if I were to cut out a section of *your* worldview and use it to replace my own… it would be more valid on the subject of christian beliefs? I think almost everyone has a different idea of what a concept means. No [one] christian has the exact same notion of what it means to be a christian, I would think. In a way, aren’t all views some weird bastardized perspective of what the guy who originally produced the idea thought? Sure, there are things like math equations which are solid, uncompromising information. Yet christianity (and other religious practices) are matters of philosophy, and they are open to interpretation from the get-go. I assume that means that these ideas will forever be interpreted in alternate ways, even if it is done similarly. Again, that’s what always made sense to me, and not what I naturally assume everyone else to think.

Sojobo wrote:

1) Being scared into bowing down is not worship.
2) God is all about love.
3) If worship is appropriate, desiring it is not vanity.
4) Worship is not petty.
5) Your "if God were truly benign" assertion is unclear and unsupported.

1) You ought to tell that to a lot of people.
2) Someone mentioned the story of Job. That story proves that God is totally not about peace, love, and wild parties up in heaven. What happened there was the equivalent of a father betting a friend of his (the devil) that if he beat his child bloody, the child would still love him. So God allowed the child to get the snot kicked out of him emotionally and physically. Then he gave him some candy afterwards (heaven.) Heaven isn’t good enough. Nothing will make that right. God is… just… horrible, for sitting back and watching that happen for the sole purpose of asserting his superiority. What a jerk.
3) I disagree. Nothing should be held so sacred that it controls you.
4) It is, when the figure being worshipped is undeserving.
5) I think I supported that reasonably well, if tersely. To elaborate, God isn’t a nice guy. God sowed an endless supply of hatred by showing himself to humans in a single part of the world, and then taking off while leaving that particular group to “spread the word.” You’d think he’d have taken some effin’ responsibility and come back to correct misunderstandings, or he could have been TRULY benevolent and never shown himself at all. Thus allowing man genuine free will, without the knowledge that God was looking over his shoulder and judging him like a piece of fruit that he might not buy because it has a small bruise. There again, that's kind of crappy of him too.

Sojobo wrote:

When you say it depends on which version of the devil I'm referring to, you are ignoring everything that has been said so far. I am referring to the Devil as partially described in the Bible. His relationship to the Lake of Fire is that he gets tossed into it to burn. He is not master of it. I made it quite clear which version I was talking about. You dig?

Which bible? There are quite a few. So many, in fact, I don’t see how one can be more valid than the other. Except if you plucked out the oldest version you could find.

Sojobo wrote:

Rolling Eyes

Well I had to say something funny. I was on the verge of being taken completely seriously. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
falsedef



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 20

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Major Tom wrote:
actually, catholics kinda renovated limbo back at vatican II...it's a second bathroom now.

original sin no longer keeps unbaptized babies from entering the kingdom.

I wasn't aware -- good move on their part.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Page 7 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group