Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (79655)	5/23/2000 1:53:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

> It may not work for you, but it has a certain poetic power, < I accept this. But it seems to me to be so inelegant, unnecessary. Surely a truly competent God would find a way to redress the imbalance without the need for ... the startling cruelty of the Abraham story taken to its grim conclusion. Kill the Crown Prince to save the kingdom. Huh??? I agree that the things, the ideas that you present are very resonant to humans. But I would hope that an omnipotent, omniscient God would be able to "work outside the box" imposed by human cognition. I see the Crucifixion as failing this ...criterion? hope? ... and operating within the trap of human despair, human talent for malapercu, offering only some promise of post-mortem reconciliation as the incentive. Hmph. Of course, this should all be understood to be beer talk. Musings. >Modern people are often very bad in getting the idea of retributive justice. They think that punishment is a deterrent, or a way of getting people to rehabilitate.< I think a lot of people "get it", and recognize that retributive justice is very easily corruptible into vengeance. We are asked to believe in an all-knowing, all-merciful judge. One such would never employ retribution. (Instead, one such would perhaps find silent and elegant ways to correct the imbalance that formed the root of the transgression. How? Dunno. Me human.) The idea that retribution is needed or appropriate undermines the very claim of an all-capable God. It narrows the God-concept dreadfully, imo!! It renders God subject to human cognitive dissonance. I see contradiction here in the rational component of the Christian belief, if that Christian belief is immovable in accepting Scripture as the final authority. But it does offer a startling suggestion that as children of a dysfunctional God, we might be made in his image and yet not be inherently noble. That would be tragic, and I reject the notion. There is greater comfort in nihilism imo.

To: Neocon who wrote (79655)	5/23/2000 1:59:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

I find it oddly UNJUST that God would take on the sins of others. Sin should be born personally- there is no justice if you get to skate, is there? I also find it odd that he would need to be crucified as a person in order to do that. IF he had the power to do it he could have done it in a different way. WHY choose crucifixion?- which far from being poetic is rather gruesome and ghastly. Why not just say- all your sins are forgiven if you believe in me. Which is what he is saying in the Bible with that unnecessary crucifixion thrown in. It's a bargain- it's a deal- you believe and give your faith and (if he exists) you get to be forgiven and go someplace with a good climate after you die. But logically, Christ really isn't necessary at all- if God is omnipotent- he could have done his redemptive act any way he wanted. So why do it in that particularly nasty way? Far as I can see- no good reason. To bad God isn't on the net. We could ask him to EXPLAIN himself.