Thread: Is it possible for us as men to have a discussion on God

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

This brings up a question of morality. Is it moral to assume the suffering of another person can absolve you of sin? If I let you serve a term in prison for me, are we both better men for it? Worse? Which one of us has faulty morals? Both? The system that lets it occur?

Just more things to think about.

Look at sin as if you would a Debt. The debtor doesn't care who pays the debt...as long as it's paid for.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

What is sin? Can I even be absolved of it, and if so, how?

sin is a term invented by the priesthood caste to describe normal human behavior.

you see, by making everything that people normally do "evil" they have kept themselves in business for thousands of years, living off the guilt of others.

no need for absolution. it's all just a clever scam to get money out of your pockets and into a funny little plate they pass around at big guilt-parties every sunday.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

No

What system? God? His morals are beyond reproach

I mostly meant organized religion, the sytem that opines on the intentions of a god and posits ways to fit into those intentions.

Just wanted to see what people think of the idea.

About my earlier comment on knowing that a god loves you/us, I was really curious, no fascetious comments were intended.

Originally Posted by jockeys

sin is a term invented by the priesthood caste to describe normal human behavior.

you see, by making everything that people normally do "evil" they have kept themselves in business for thousands of years, living off the guilt of others.

no need for absolution. it's all just a clever scam to get money out of your pockets and into a funny little plate they pass around at big guilt-parties every sunday.

Point made. Please try to discuss without pointing the "you are bad" finger at anyone.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

Point made. Please try to discuss without pointing the "you are bad" finger at anyone.

You misunderstand me. I don't think the priesthood is bad. I think they are brilliant. It's a hell of a business model, practically the most successful one in history.

I only wish I was charismatic enough to pull it off. Mr. Hubbard leveraged his charisma and creativity into a massive empire that made him disgustingly rich. For whatever reason, this lowly engineer doesn't seem to be able to manage feats of social engineering like that, at least not very well. I managed to start a small cult when I was in school, but students were a bad target demographic, none of 'em had any money.

Ah well, someday I'll get it right. Guess I'm just jealous of how good at social engineering some of the priesthood is. Jealousy's a sin, though, right?

That's fine. Just be carefull where you thread in this one (and that's a statement for everyone). This is a sensitive subject afterall and after doing so well for soo many pages I'd hate to see this topic turn into something nasty.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

Look at sin as if you would a Debt. The debtor doesn't care who pays the debt...as long as it's paid for.

If it applies in one circumstance why does it not apply with equal respect across the board?

Can you see a correlation between the idea of an inherited sin and the inherited shame of the untouchables in a caste system like in India? And then further, the moral dilemma of transferring that sin to another person?

I don't think it would be a particular debt that is transferred, but rather the state of indebtedness itself. Like slavery. If you're born to a slave, then you're part of the master's slave collection. You may have not incurred the debt yourself, but it was passed on unfortunately. All you have to do is accept payment from someone who can buy your freedom

Or be adopted into a free family. That should work just as well. As long as a transfer of ownership is made from being in debt to not being in debt, then the transfer of debt is also taken care of

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I don't think it would be a particular debt that is transferred, but rather the state of indebtedness itself. Like slavery. If you're born to a slave, then you're part of the master's slave collection. You may have not incurred the debt yourself, but it was passed on unfortunately. All you have to do is accept payment from someone who can buy your freedom

Or be adopted into a free family. That should work just as well. As long as a transfer of ownership is made from being in debt to not being in debt, then the transfer of debt is also taken care of

I think the point Russell is trying to make is that the whole system of slavery (as a metaphor for sin/guilt) is morally bankrupt.

As they say, the only way to win is to not play

If morality is relative then moral bankruptcy has no meaning

There's another saying: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!
(If you don't want to join 'em, you better beat 'em!)