Profound Question

midcan5

liberal / progressive
Jun 4, 2007
12,740
3,513
260
America
"This poor child of five was subjected to every possible torture by those cultivated parents. They beat her, thrashed her, kicked her for no reason till her body was one bruise. Then, they went to greater refinements of cruelty -- shut her up all night in the cold and frost in a privy, and because she didn't ask to be taken up at night (as though a child of five sleeping its angelic, sound sleep could be trained to wake and ask), they smeared her face and filled her mouth with excrement, and it was her mother, her mother did this. And that mother could sleep, hearing the poor child's groans! Can you understand why a little creature, who can't even understand what's done to her, should beat her little aching heart with her tiny fist in the dark and the cold, and weep her meek unresentful tears to dear, kind God to protect her? Do you understand that, friend and brother, you pious and humble novice? Do you understand why this infamy must be and is permitted? Without it, I am told, man could not have existed on earth, for he could not have known good and evil. Why should he know that diabolical good and evil when it costs so much? Why, the whole world of knowledge is not worth that child's prayer to dear, kind God'! I say nothing of the sufferings of grown-up people, they have eaten the apple, damn them, and the devil take them all! But these little ones! I am making you suffer, Alyosha, you are not yourself. I'll leave off if you like."

"Nevermind. I want to suffer too," muttered Alyosha.

"One picture, only one more, because it's so curious, so characteristic, and I have only just read it in some collection of Russian antiquities. I've forgotten the name. I must look it up. It was in the darkest days of serfdom at the beginning of the century, and long live the Liberator of the People! There was in those days a general of aristocratic connections, the owner of great estates, one of those men -- somewhat exceptional, I believe, even then -- who, retiring from the service into a life of leisure, are convinced that they've earned absolute power over the lives of their subjects. There were such men then. So our general, settled on his property of two thousand souls, lives in pomp, and domineers over his poor neighbours as though they were dependents and buffoons. He has kennels of hundreds of hounds and nearly a hundred dog-boys -- all mounted, and in uniform. One day a serf-boy, a little child of eight, threw a stone in play and hurt the paw of the general's favourite hound. 'Why is my favourite dog lame?' He is told that the boy threw a stone that hurt the dog's paw. 'So you did it.' The general looked the child up and down. 'Take him.' He was taken -- taken from his mother and kept shut up all night. Early that morning the general comes out on horseback, with the hounds, his dependents, dog-boys, and huntsmen, all mounted around him in full hunting parade. The servants are summoned for their edification, and in front of them all stands the mother of the child. The child is brought from the lock-up. It's a gloomy, cold, foggy, autumn day, a capital day for hunting. The general orders the child to be undressed; the child is stripped naked. He shivers, numb with terror, not daring to cry.... 'Make him run,' commands the general. 'Run! run!' shout the dog-boys. The boy runs.... 'At him!' yells the general, and he sets the whole pack of hounds on the child. The hounds catch him, and tear him to pieces before his mother's eyes!... I believe the general was afterwards declared incapable of administering his estates. Well -- what did he deserve? To be shot? To be shot for the satisfaction of our moral feelings? Speak, Alyosha!

"To be shot," murmured Alyosha, lifting his eyes to Ivan with a pale, twisted smile.

"Bravo!" cried Ivan delighted. "If even you say so... You're a pretty monk! So there is a little devil sitting in your heart, Alyosha Karamazov!"
 
how could a human even begin to comment on the perspective of a god?
 
Easily, most religious think they know exactly. But this is hypothetical you can answer as yourself, a mere mortal.
 
"This poor child of five was subjected to every possible torture by those cultivated parents. They beat her, thrashed her, kicked her for no reason till her body was one bruise. Then, they went to greater refinements of cruelty -- shut her up all night in the cold and frost in a privy, and because she didn't ask to be taken up at night (as though a child of five sleeping its angelic, sound sleep could be trained to wake and ask), they smeared her face and filled her mouth with excrement, and it was her mother, her mother did this. And that mother could sleep, hearing the poor child's groans! Can you understand why a little creature, who can't even understand what's done to her, should beat her little aching heart with her tiny fist in the dark and the cold, and weep her meek unresentful tears to dear, kind God to protect her? Do you understand that, friend and brother, you pious and humble novice? Do you understand why this infamy must be and is permitted? Without it, I am told, man could not have existed on earth, for he could not have known good and evil. Why should he know that diabolical good and evil when it costs so much? Why, the whole world of knowledge is not worth that child's prayer to dear, kind God'! I say nothing of the sufferings of grown-up people, they have eaten the apple, damn them, and the devil take them all! But these little ones! I am making you suffer, Alyosha, you are not yourself. I'll leave off if you like."

"Nevermind. I want to suffer too," muttered Alyosha.

"One picture, only one more, because it's so curious, so characteristic, and I have only just read it in some collection of Russian antiquities. I've forgotten the name. I must look it up. It was in the darkest days of serfdom at the beginning of the century, and long live the Liberator of the People! There was in those days a general of aristocratic connections, the owner of great estates, one of those men -- somewhat exceptional, I believe, even then -- who, retiring from the service into a life of leisure, are convinced that they've earned absolute power over the lives of their subjects. There were such men then. So our general, settled on his property of two thousand souls, lives in pomp, and domineers over his poor neighbours as though they were dependents and buffoons. He has kennels of hundreds of hounds and nearly a hundred dog-boys -- all mounted, and in uniform. One day a serf-boy, a little child of eight, threw a stone in play and hurt the paw of the general's favourite hound. 'Why is my favourite dog lame?' He is told that the boy threw a stone that hurt the dog's paw. 'So you did it.' The general looked the child up and down. 'Take him.' He was taken -- taken from his mother and kept shut up all night. Early that morning the general comes out on horseback, with the hounds, his dependents, dog-boys, and huntsmen, all mounted around him in full hunting parade. The servants are summoned for their edification, and in front of them all stands the mother of the child. The child is brought from the lock-up. It's a gloomy, cold, foggy, autumn day, a capital day for hunting. The general orders the child to be undressed; the child is stripped naked. He shivers, numb with terror, not daring to cry.... 'Make him run,' commands the general. 'Run! run!' shout the dog-boys. The boy runs.... 'At him!' yells the general, and he sets the whole pack of hounds on the child. The hounds catch him, and tear him to pieces before his mother's eyes!... I believe the general was afterwards declared incapable of administering his estates. Well -- what did he deserve? To be shot? To be shot for the satisfaction of our moral feelings? Speak, Alyosha!

"To be shot," murmured Alyosha, lifting his eyes to Ivan with a pale, twisted smile.

"Bravo!" cried Ivan delighted. "If even you say so... You're a pretty monk! So there is a little devil sitting in your heart, Alyosha Karamazov!"

According to His nauseatingly unctuous supporters, God is gutted that these poor little mites, His very own robokids, remember, suffer so grievously but His hands are tied.

The terrible threat that the androids Adam and Eve posed to his omnipotence, when they predictably took His bait and sought godly knowledge, was too great, His tender feelings too aggrieved by their predestined disobedience, for God to do anything else but torment and torture ALL His tiny tots for all eternity.

His followers further insist that there is nothing that God wouldn’t give to forget His jumped-up piss and importance and pardon all His automatons for their exceedingly heinous crime; unfortunately the dye was cast well before the Creation.

It is not for want of trying that He is so intractably fanatical. Even sacrificing His own supernatural kid/self failed to mollify His insane vanity.

So the answer, according to our self-appointed moral superiors is; don’t blame God, or even bring Him into the problem.

Obviously the evil little bastards bought their suffering on themselves by being born to the distant ancestors of a freethinking Jewess with a fancy for magic apples.

Given God's same set of extenuating circumstances, i.e. His creations criminally attempting to shed the shackles of superstition, ignorance, and proto-capitalist bondage, the Bible assures us there isn’t a genuine Christian man/woman on earth who wouldn’t kill his own kids for such wickedness.
 
Easily, most religious think they know exactly. But this is hypothetical you can answer as yourself, a mere mortal.

easily? hardly. How can you possibly extract your human perspective to an objective level enough to have any chance to do more than act like the standard dogma charlatan using the concept of god as a mouthpiece for personal human opinion? If I answer it myself, a mere mortal, how would that possible reflect on an answer from a god?
 
Chips, in spite of your blasphemy you obviously know and understand religion. Catholic?


Shogun, I guess I don't place things about religion or God so far out that I cannot think about them.


It seems there are no tragedians among us who will hazard an answer. The question is rhetorical. A catch 22.
 
by all means think.

and have a human opinion...

I guess the greeks were thinking while their pantheon reflected their own human
opinions too.
 
Chips, in spite of your blasphemy you obviously know and understand religion. Catholic?


Shogun, I guess I don't place things about religion or God so far out that I cannot think about them.


It seems there are no tragedians among us who will hazard an answer. The question is rhetorical. A catch 22.

Former inmate of a Christian Brother's concentration camp, an unwilling member of a Methodist Sunday school, and later an equally unwilling particpant in a Prezo Bible study.

All of them at my Catholic Communist father's behest.

As for my "blasphemy," the only blasphemy I have encountered in my 65 years is religion itself.
 
Former inmate of a Christian Brother's concentration camp, an unwilling member of a Methodist Sunday school, and later an equally unwilling particpant in a Prezo Bible study.

All of them at my Catholic Communist father's behest.

As for my "blasphemy," the only blasphemy I have encountered in my 65 years is religion itself.


You and constant barrage of hate-filled rhetoric are every bit the worthless gutter dweller as those you accuse.
 
Former inmate of a Christian Brother's concentration camp, an unwilling member of a Methodist Sunday school, and later an equally unwilling particpant in a Prezo Bible study.

All of them at my Catholic Communist father's behest.

As for my "blasphemy," the only blasphemy I have encountered in my 65 years is religion itself.

I think you have issues with your father so naturally your feelings toward religion are messed up. I hope that you have found peace there somehow though for your sake. I imagine a different world when you were growing up under the grips of religionist society compared to now. I hope you understand where I'm coming from.
 
As for my "blasphemy," the only blasphemy I have encountered in my 65 years is religion itself.

LOL

Isn't it funny how so many look to our relationships with our parents as a key to understanding. I think of my own parents and my father is/was a womanizer/gambler and mom a saint, I mean that in a good way. She may be, to answer Bertrand Russell, the only Christian, but still nutty in her religion. I am neither, although the womanizer has more appeal than the other.
 
You and constant barrage of hate-filled rhetoric are every bit the worthless gutter dweller as those you accuse.

You mean I sound like a sarcastic, satanic version of a sermonising, typically synthetically decent Seppo Christian? :party:

I CERTAINLY HOPE SO! :eusa_think: :eusa_think:

I have to go completely out of character to reproduce you and your "Christrian" pal's PUBLIC persona.

Thanks for the feedback, Gooney. Nice to know I’m infuriating the fascistic Christians that Christ wouldn’t piss on if they were on fire! :eusa_angel:
 
I think you have issues with your father so naturally your feelings toward religion are messed up. I hope that you have found peace there somehow though for your sake. I imagine a different world when you were growing up under the grips of religionist society compared to now. I hope you understand where I'm coming from.

BOY, DO I HAVE "ISSUES” WITH MY FATHER! :eusa_boohoo:

But his insistence that I get a good grounding in religion, to enable me make up my own mind when old enough, wasn’t one of them.

It taught me to go by "works", :shock: not highfaluting but patently hypocritical rhetoric and storefront decency when judging a person, organisation, or nation.

Fortunately, my life experiences have borne out my Gaelic granny’s wise words, “The bigger the Bible, the bigger the crook!” “Show me, don’t tell me” became my mantra very earlier in life.

As Caesars wife should be beyond reproach, so too should sermonising little sucks who say one thing but do another. To paraphrase De Lawd, "Take the Sequoia (Sp?) Pine outta your own eye before your sermonise about the speck in a "sinner's" eye!"

I‘ll be nice to Christians as soon as they renounce every religious and racially supremacist bit of their vile Bible.

Having said this, it may surprise, nay SHOCK, many here that I verbally and financially support some religious folk.

For example, and in spite of my discarded native Catholicism, I was, and still am, impressed by the works, :shock: if not most of the doctrine, of the Church of England (in particular the Brotherhood of Saint Lawrence) for its non-judgemental, no-strings-attached assistance to the poor and destitute in my hometown. The Sally Army comes a creditable second.

Finally, I’m fucked if I know why publicly pious Seppos get so upset with me for stereotyping them all as hypocrites.

I mean what could be more stereotypical than their Bible; with it’s “Believe as I do or be socially ostracised here on earth and burnt forever in eternity”? :eusa_think: :eusa_think:
 
BOY, DO I HAVE "ISSUES” WITH MY FATHER! :eusa_boohoo:

But his insistence that I get a good grounding in religion, to enable me make up my own mind when old enough, wasn’t one of them.

It taught me to go by "works", :shock: not highfaluting but patently hypocritical rhetoric and storefront decency when judging a person, organisation, or nation.

Fortunately, my life experiences have borne out my Gaelic granny’s wise words, “The bigger the Bible, the bigger the crook!” “Show me, don’t tell me” became my mantra very earlier in life.

As Caesars wife should be beyond reproach, so too should sermonising little sucks who say one thing but do another. To paraphrase De Lawd, "Take the Sequoia (Sp?) Pine outta your own eye before your sermonise about the speck in a "sinner's" eye!"

I‘ll be nice to Christians as soon as they renounce every religious and racially supremacist bit of their vile Bible.

Having said this, it may surprise, nay SHOCK, many here that I verbally and financially support some religious folk.

For example, and in spite of my discarded native Catholicism, I was, and still am, impressed by the works, :shock: if not most of the doctrine, of the Church of England (in particular the Brotherhood of Saint Lawrence) for its non-judgemental, no-strings-attached assistance to the poor and destitute in my hometown. The Sally Army comes a creditable second.

Finally, I’m fucked if I know why publicly pious Seppos get so upset with me for stereotyping them all as hypocrites.

I mean what could be more stereotypical than their Bible; with it’s “Believe as I do or be socially ostracised here on earth and burnt forever in eternity”? :eusa_think: :eusa_think:


You're very intelligent and show good understanding of truth.
 
This is what gets on my nerve and makes me wonder if God (particularly the Christian God) exists. How could a supposedly all-knowing, all-powerful, all just, and all loving God let this happen. What did little child do to deserve this agonizing fate? What did the vulture do to deserve such a meal?

wanting_a_meal.jpg
 
This is what gets on my nerve and makes me wonder if God (particularly the Christian God) exists. How could a supposedly all-knowing, all-powerful, all just, and all loving God let this happen. What did little child do to deserve this agonizing fate? What did the vulture do to deserve such a meal?

wanting_a_meal.jpg

I don't really have an opinion on if there is a god, but even if there is, he/she doesn't let this happen, we do. If it were truly our desire, we could stop it at any time.
 
I was a battered child, verbally, emotionally, and physically. I do not blame God. I blame the person(s) who did that to me.

I do not blame God for the suffering of little children or grown ups for that matter anywhere. I blame the truly evil warlords who rape the land and the people and consign them to miserable lives interrupted by unconscionable savage brutality and cruelty while denying them the means by which they could lift themselves out of poverty. And I blame all of us who do not give the tithe that God requires and that could alleviate much of the suffering in the world.

I do not blame God for natural disasters that cause pain, death, and suffering. I 'blame' (blame is negotiable here) the judgment of those who choose to live in areas certain to experience violent storms and/or periodic flooding or on earthquake fault lines or in tornado alley (unless you have a fraidy hole) or brush filled canyons.

The way I see it, if there was no sin in the world there would be no pain and suffering. But because we make mistakes, wrong choices, bad decisions, errors in judgment, and/or do intentional acts that hurt ourselves and/or others, (all forms of sin), we screw it up for ourselves and others. As the Bible says, "The rain falls on the just and the unjust alike." We can reason that if there was no consequence to be had for sin, God would not have been against it.

My definition of sin: "That which harms ourselves and/or others." And the Bible also says that "the sins of the fathers shall be visited on the children even to the fourth and fifth generatons" meaning that the sins we commmit today, knowingly and unknowingly, can have consequences for a long long time to come.

Source: The Gospel according to Foxfyre.
 
I was a battered child, verbally, emotionally, and physically. I do not blame God. I blame the person(s) who did that to me.

I do not blame God for the suffering of little children or grown ups for that matter anywhere. I blame the truly evil warlords who rape the land and the people and consign them to miserable lives interrupted by unconscionable savage brutality and cruelty while denying them the means by which they could lift themselves out of poverty. And I blame all of us who do not give the tithe that God requires and that could alleviate much of the suffering in the world.

I do not blame God for natural disasters that cause pain, death, and suffering. I 'blame' (blame is negotiable here) the judgment of those who choose to live in areas certain to experience violent storms and/or periodic flooding or on earthquake fault lines or in tornado alley (unless you have a fraidy hole) or brush filled canyons.

The way I see it, if there was no sin in the world there would be no pain and suffering. But because we make mistakes, wrong choices, bad decisions, errors in judgment, and/or do intentional acts that hurt ourselves and/or others, (all forms of sin), we screw it up for ourselves and others. As the Bible says, "The rain falls on the just and the unjust alike." We can reason that if there was no consequence to be had for sin, God would not have been against it.

My definition of sin: "That which harms ourselves and/or others." And the Bible also says that "the sins of the fathers shall be visited on the children even to the fourth and fifth generatons" meaning that the sins we commmit today, knowingly and unknowingly, can have consequences for a long long time to come.

Source: The Gospel according to Foxfyre.

Is that fair? The Bible often says that God is fair and loving. Yet, that is inconsistent with the notion that sins are passed down to children. Consider the death and destruction from a recent Tsunami:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake#Damage_and_casualties

Also, consider Katrina. Oh. Most of the People who were hit by Katrina were Black. Does God dislike Black people?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_Hurricane_Katrina_on_New_Orleans#Loss_of_life

If God is a just God and a loving God, why does this stuff happen? It simply is not logical.
 
perhaps it's logic that is too broad for humans to fathom outside of their own humanity....
 

Forum List

Back
Top