Monday, October 11, 2010

More total, pathological insanity: Can We Begin the ECT?

Pastor Hell-monger's latest handiwork: Me thinks he and Fred Phelps need to get together and compare "Hell notes"!

Two blogs earlier, I showed the pathological Hell pornography to which a brain can become attached and fetishize if care is not taken. I also showed how this "Hell porn" is most often the province and addiction of a certain rigid, absolutist, inflexible set of believers who: a) are largely white male evangelicals, and b) believe in an authoritarian, judgmental God who fits the belligerent sort of psycho portrayed in Genesis, Deuteronomy etc. and dismissed as the "demiurgos" by the Gnostics.

As if to reinforce all this, we see that in Pastor Mike's latest blog he confirms he's as sick and engulfed in Hell porn as his brother in arms, Fred Phelps. But let's examine his words and see if this is so:

He begins:

"God's love demands a Hell ! That's right - His LOVE ! The Bible asserts that "God is love" ( 1 John 4:16 ) . But love cannot act coercively , only persuasively . A God of love cannot force people to love Him . Paul spoke of things being done freely and not of compulsion ( 2 Cor. 9:7 ) . Forced love is not love ; it is control , like rape . "

So, okay, let's see if I've got this processed correctly! You're asserting a putative deity who is capable of "infinite Love" demands a Hell? But WHAT if a person (say Frank Tipler, or our Catholic Mom, or the Pope or the Dalai Lama) DOES Love him, but just not in the rigid form you do? WHO ARE YOU to say their love doesn't pass muster but YOURS does? WHO ARE YOU to say their way is inferior?

What you are in fact suggesting is that YOUR (Judgmental, authoritarian) God is acting coercively, since - according to you - it will not be "persuaded" by the love shown by all the others who don't follow the exact same route or formula as you (say all those not so anally obsessive about the Bible). In fact, it is YOU who are demanding a specific FORCED LOVE (more like a Godfather's extortion!) which, if not adhered too, must cost the divine lover his soul for eternity!

He rambles on:

"A loving being always gives "space" to others . He does not force Himself upon them against their will . Hence , those who do not choose to love God must be allowed not to love Him . Those who do not wish to be with Him must be allowed to be separated from Him . Hell allows separation from God !"

Okay, IF a loving being always gives space to others, then what about psychological space: the space to act and love in a way befitting to THEM? If your God doesn't force himself on others, then who are you to force (YOUR) way of loving onto them and invalidating their conception of their deity? WHO are you, indeed, to say or not that one doesn't love the God of his or her own ideation? Must that God that's loved by others be your authoritarian taskmaster? I think not! Indeed, the whole point of the book, "America's FOUR Gods' is that there are different conceptions, for which each person is entitled to make his or her own choice. By that I mean, conceive the divine in his or her own right. Thus, you are not in any privileged position to dismiss any other person's particular version, or his or her particular brand of divine love!

Finally, you commit a colossal logical non sequitur in claiming "Hell allows separation from God" - because, bluntly, if God is INFINITE, that means unbounded in Being and encompassing ALL BEING!

That means - follow me here, though I know it's hard- that there can't exist anything not part of the Infinite Being! That means IF Hell does indeed exist, it must be part of GOD!

If it is separate from God, then a state of being exists where God isn't, which logically means God's Being 0r state is limited, hence he cannot be infinite.

Again, you can have your Hell, OR you can have an Infinite God, you can't have BOTH!

He now veers into more malarkey:

"God's Sovereignty Demands a Hell . Unless there is a hell there is no final victory over evil . For what frustrates good is evil . The wheat and tares cannot grow together forever. There must be an ultimate separation , or else good will not triumph over evil ."

Here you are posing God as a petty human tyrant, and using limited, flawed concepts of human justice and sovereignty to attempt to describe a divine entity that is supposedly "infinite". Can't you see, or won't you admit, that typically HUMAN attributes like "justice", ""sovereignty" etc. can't apply to a truly infinite being? As for "good" and "evil" these can't exist to a truly infinite being.

Physicist Philosopher Henry Margenau has compared reality perception for a finite being (such as a human) and a boundary-free (infinite) being on the basis of “time slits”.[1] In particular, he notes the latter would lack a time slit and this absence is precisely what makes all times instantly accessible. Humans, meanwhile, “are constrained by a narrow slit in the time dimension”. This narrowness of temporal dimension creates our sense of isolation, along with our limited three-dimensional body and sense apparatus. Our human minds, obviously, can only process within the limits of our time slits and the perceptions attendant on them. Thus, asked to envisage some eternal “punishments” compatible with our God-concepts we invariably arrive at those emphasizing isolation and separation first, and extreme punishment (“Hell”), second.

The problem is that this limited time slit version of "Hell", which is a human mental byproduct, doesn’t square with the only genuine transpersonal or non-local entity that might pass as a God! Indeed, it contradicts it! What it does, essentially, is demand that the non-local, time-slit liberated version of deity revert to a narrow time-slit version of deity when applying punishment – presumably for those who eschew belief in it.

One is led to conclude that the most reliable concept of a deity: a transpersonal entity with zero time constraints (consonant with an infinite, non-local nature) would be incapable of applying punishment to lesser beings in its firmament or field of perception. The reason is that such punishment requires actions on the level of “isolation” or “separation” that are incompatible with the nature of the transcendent Being's non-locality. A Being that so acted, therefore, would be cognizant not only of its creatures’ isolation but its own! Hence, recognize its own finitude and limits and could not therefore be omniscient or omnipresent!

Thus, if such an entity (which is more or less analogous to Bohm’s “Holomovement”) existed, it would have to be literally blind to any transgressions against it, and certainly to puny human disbelief. This “blindness” arises not from overlooking human deficiency, but rather from its non-local nature that cannot at once be boundary –free and also localized in perceptions, to the extent of isolating a part of existence for “punishment”.

The parlous Pastor again:

"As in society , punishment for evil is necessary that good might prevail . Even so , in eternity good must triumph over evil . If it does not , then God is not in ultimate control . God's sovereignty demands a hell , otherwise He would not be the ultimate victor over evil that the Bible ( His Word ) declares Him to be ( cf. 1 Cor. 15:24-28 ; Rev. 20-22 ) ."

Again, those quoted are only going by their limited human perceptions. As we saw, a truly transcendent Being would act far beyond the constraints of those primitive ideations. As for "good" over "evil" the point escaping you is that BOTH are aspects of the same divine consciousness, supposing it exists. What we (humans) see as polar opposites are actually integrated at a higher level we can't attain. Thus, no "punishment" is needed for conditions already there. Again, all this follows from postulating an infinite Being. If the latter is the case, then ALL humans must be part of that same Being, else it is not infinite. Every human is then an expression of that Being which is why the Anglicans had it right when they taught "Universal Salvation" instead of selective salvation. The former is consistent with divine infinitude, the latter isn't.

He takes on Tipler's version of limited Hell here, with scant success:

"Now , why not reform people ? Why ETERNAL punishment ? Why doesn't God try to reform sinners ? The answer is that God DOES try to reform people ! The time of reformation is called LIFE !"

But, one life may simply not be enough for billions! What about an infant born half paralyzed, then abused for years by its parents....and by the age of fifteen, left for dead? It may well need a lifetime to recover to the point of positive change, yet you don't give it! Thus, for this person - more than one life is needed for reform.

Again, he contradicts his earlier tracts:

"Hell is only for the unreformable and unrepentant , the reprobate ( cf. 2 Peter 2:1-6 ) . It is not for anyone who IS reformable . God in His wisdom and goodness would not allow anyone to go to hell whom He knew would go to heaven if He gave them more opportunity . "

But why do you purport to TELL God what to do? How do you know someone like Frank Tipler is "unrepentant", merely because he chooses to believe in a faith (or God) different from yours? WHO are YOU to say who is "unrepentant" and who isn't? And if a devout Catholic - like our deceased Dad- chose to follow the Catholic faith and not yours, who are YOU to assert he's gone to Hell? And don't hand me any BS about what your Bible says! Your Bible ISN'T GOD, damn it! Don't purport to transfer the ancient distorted words of semi-literate peasant nomads into the actual words from a putative infinite being!

And even more incomprehensible balderdash:

"So , you see , my friends , God will not force people to be reformed . Forced reformation is worse than punishment ; it is cruel and inhumane . At least punishment respects the freedom and dignity of the person"

Okay, let's see if I've got this right: so dishing out an eternity of HELL "respects the dignity and freedom" of the person more than Tipler's suggestion of a progressive remediating "purgatory" (the Omega Point (God) guides the resurrectee through a 'zero sum finite dual game with perfect information (like chess)'. But wait, the interactive play of a sum finite dual game with perfect information, is NOT the same as "forced reformation" (since the person has the choice to play the game or not).

So, once again, we see that YOU are the one who delimits the powers and capabilities of your God in your own mind! You are the one that circumscribes the divine potentialities at every turn? WHY? Is it not better, for the freedom and dignity of the recalcitrant person, to allow him to play the zero sum finite dual game with perfect information, than dispatch him to HELL forever? Or is it that, IF YOU WERE GOD THIS IS WHAT YOU WOULD DO! And you project your own intentions onto the authoritarian creature of your own mind!

Finally, he blathers self-righteously:

"As long as The LORD keeps me on this earth I shall continue to warn people about the eternal consequences of their unbelief ( or false unbelief )"

Well, first, I think you mean false belief (in YOUR mind, by your interpretation). Saying "false unbelief" is incongruous and nonsensical, since by your terms any "unbelief" is already ab initio deemed false in relation to your belief. On the other hand, because you deem Catholics unfit as Christians or unbiblical (even our dad) you are essentially saying they are guilty of FALSE belief!

But again, WHO are YOU, to say that? Or your corrupted bible, which has already been exposed at many levels as being rife with errors, contradictions, and actual re-formulations of original text with words inserted into the mouths of one or other person.

Consider: from the earliest OT scribblings (12 th century BC) to the final establishment of the NT corpus at the Council of Trent (16th century) more than 28 centuries elapsed. That is twenty eight centuries for copyist errors to propagate through millennia and not be caught and for enormous mistranslations to emerge because of said errors. Even worse, the Trent corpus was not even the final word or revision, the good Book was then bastardized compliments of Henry VIII of England who enjoined the fabrication of the King James Bible which is even less trustworthy than any of the Catholic versions!

Trustworthiness itself was often determined by consensus in the earliest writings and codices. Most present day fundamentalists aren’t even remotely aware that the content they are claiming today as “literal or inerrant words” were in fact originally “passed by committee” !

Half the oldest manuscript witness texts, including a Bodmer papyrus, the Vaticanus and Beza’s Codex omit the sentence in Luke 23: 34 which contains the words of Jesus. This level of uncertainty in the textual tradition means the interpretation of the passage was a subject of serious debate.

So, what it all comes down to is not your "warning people" of any eternal consequences other than the ones YOU would have visited on them if you were the authoritarian "God" onto which YOU project your own aberrations, cruelty, vindictiveness and spite.

We've seen your version of "God" and its "love" and you can keep it all to yourself, bro. We'd rather spend an eternity anywhere else than with the likes of you..... or Fred ('God Hates Us all')Phelps! But at least Phelps, no matter what one may think of him otherwise, is brutally honest about the TRUE nature of the God-image he subscribes to, unlike you! Meanwhile, for an excellent article:

[1] Henry Margenau.: 1987, The Miracle of Existence, New Science Library, p. 121. Margenau’s use of the term “time slit” is intended to represent the temporal analog of a spatial slit, e.g. what extent of a room is visible to you see if you observe it through a narrow “slit”, say a keyhole?

No comments: