What do you think of this man?

[rug]

A few posts have me thinking of him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Damien

[trotsky]

1. Considering he said:

"I make myself a leper with the lepers to gain all to Jesus Christ."

Color me less impressed than you.

[rug]

9. Would this impress you more?

"I make myself a leper with the lepers to bring the truth there is no god."

[trotsky]

14. Nope.

[Silent3]

17. Why not just help lepers to help them in this life?

Without having any theistic or atheistic agenda?

[rug]

22. That is the way to go. But historically that role was often played by religions.

Religion has earned its fair share of criticism but it is dishonest to ignore what good things it has done and continues to do.

[Silent3]

24. Who has been ignoring "good things it has done"?

Is it your contention that merely not liking religion, wishing it would fade away, is tantamount to ignoring good things done by religion?

Most of the atheists I've run into around here merely say that they don't think the good outweighs the bad, and would rather seem the good aspects carried out in a secular framework.

[rug]

25. Don't be demure.

[Silent3]

31. Demure has nothing to do with it.

I really mean what I said. I don't think most of the people who dislike religion totally ignore good things done in the name of religion. Those good things merely aren't enough to offset the bad, especially when the good is not intrinsically linked to religion, but completely possible without it.

Perhaps every time you hear negative comments about religion, and every such utterance isn't always accompanied with a companion disclaimer acknowledging good things done in the name of religion and by religious people, that counts as "ignoring" in your book?

Perhaps someone must agree that the good is greater than the bad, otherwise you're sure they must be ignoring the good?

[thereismore]

2. Patron of lepers and the State of Hawaii. Kinda funny. Don't flame me. nt

[Wabbajack_]

3. It's nice he helped lepers

It's too bad he was a priest. Being a priest is to waste your life.

[monmouth]

5. My Uncle the Monsignor would disagree, being a drunk and drug

addict with no desire to recover is a waste of life IMO....

[Silent3]

18. There are plenty of ways to waste one's life.

They aren't mutually exclusive.

[jgraz]

19. I can assure you they definitely are not mutually exclusive

Just google "alcoholic" and "priest".

[rug]

23. I will when I'm done reading the entries on Hitchens and alcohol.

May take a while.

[jgraz]

27. Point?

How does one insane Brit's drinking habits change the number of alcoholics in the priesthood?

[rug]

28. What do alcoholic priests have to do with this thread?

I'm surprised you didn't mention pedophiles and the Inquisition.

[jgraz]

29. Did you read the entire subthread, or just my post?

The implication was made that being a priest and being a drug addict are mutually exclusive. What's wrong with correcting that misconception?

[ChadwickHenryWard]

58. You forgot the Crusades.

And the Pope's lies about condoms.

[rug]

60. I'm sure someone will bring it up in relation to postage stamps.

[rd_kent]

61. If the shoe fits......

[rug]

62. Oh, good. Explicate the releationship between the Crusades and a postage stamp.

Extra points for throwing in condoms.

Only one caveat, it has to be intelligent.

[rd_kent]

64. What would you know about an intelligent post?

There has never been anything intelligent about any of yours.

[rug]

65. If the shoe fits . . .

[rd_kent]

66. Thats why you are wearing them, they fit you perfectly...

[rug]

10. So is tv watching.

[Wabbajack_]

15. U R Funny

[rd_kent]

4. I think he help some lepers. Perhaps if god was real, then there wouldnt be lepers?

I mean, really? Leprosy? If god is real, then he really is an asshole.

[texastoast]

6. Your post made me think of the way the Amish view disease

The Amish look at their "diseased/disabled" as presents from God to help those blessed with health to have the opportunity to be more like Christ--giving, caring, serving, and loving, and without regret.

Big job.

[rd_kent]

7. So others have to suffer horrible fates so that some can be more christ-like?

yeah, sounds like a REAL asshole.

[texastoast]

8. They don't have to

They have free will. Most choose to stay within cultural "norms," but they don't have to.

It is hard for me to understand, especially when it comes to children, but I'm a lowly student, far from being any kind of master.

If there is a god, then it is a god of all, one of free will and choice. Humans are primitive and need dichotomy to understand the difference between, say, "angel" and asshole.

The Amish get it. Even when some asshole comes into their school house and murders their children.

Suffering is a relative term and our perception of someone suffering belongs only to us. How about that woman who was buried in Haiti for many hours who came out singing not to fear death? That is powerful to me. I certainly think she suffered. I'd like to hear what she thought.

[Silent3]

16. Your reply saying "they don't have to" misses the point.

The horror here is that God would cause people to suffer just to give other people an opportunity to rise to the occasion and try to relieve their suffering.

Pointing out that other people don't have to rise to the occasion makes such a God even worse, since that means much of the suffering He creates will go unrelieved.

[trotsky]

20. Oh but you missed this part:

Suffering is a relative term and our perception of someone suffering belongs only to us.

Just take a moment to let the cold, heartless, evil sentiment of that statement sink in. Er, I mean, the warm loving understanding nature of Gawd. Yeah, that's the ticket. People who suffer aren't REALLY suffering 'cause otherwise that would make me question my Sunday School theology and I can't do that. :crazy:

[texastoast]

21. So who judges who is really suffering?

Are you in charge?

Do you think my suffering is valid? Who judges the validity of suffering?

Did, say, Michael Jackson ever suffer? Or should we just pooh-pooh his little whacks across the face? Because, after all, turned out he was beloved by many for a long time and fabulously wealthy?

And Mother Theresa? Did she suffer holding the diseased orphans? Or did she perceive her lot as joy?

I want to be sure my suffering is legitimate with you.

:eyes:

[trotsky]

26. Try to justify your sadistic religious death cult philosophy somewhere else.

I am not interested.

[texastoast]

30. Alright

However, I really do want to know who is in charge of determining what is suffering.


As the Story Goes – There was a Young Boy, An Old Man, and A Donkey all Traveling on a Long Journey Together.

As they came upon a little town – the Young Boy and the Old man, had walked a long way – Giving their Faithful Donkey a Rest – They decided both would ride the donkey through town to rest their weary legs. As people watched they began to whisper, how could both of them ride that poor donkey, what cruelty to an animal.

Not long after the first town they came upon a second – the young boy said to the old man – You stay on the donkey and rest a bit more – While I lead you through town. Once again people started to whisper, how terrible it was – that the old man was making the young boy walk – when he looked so tired and his shoes so worn out.

They journeyed farther, as they came to a third little town, the old man said to the young man, you have been so kind to give me rest – now it is your turn to ride the donkey – as I lead you through town.
Once again, people began to whisper – What an awful, rude, lazy young man to make the old man walk.

Until You have walked a mile in my moccasins –
You can’t judge Me.

[trotsky]

32. LOL

Okaaaaaaaay...... :crazy:

[texastoast]

33. So not even a metaphor?

Such a gentle, ancient metaphor from the wise ones and I get called crazy. That's just wrong.

[trotsky]

34. No, what's wrong is...

discounting the suffering of others in order to support your twisted religious viewpoint. No "ancient" metaphor excuses it. Your line of thinking is the exact same one that led your precious Mother Teresa to laud suffering in others, denying them any kind of pain medication, so they could be "closer to Jesus." It is morally bankrupt and positively sadistic.

[texastoast]

35. You assume much

And discuss little.

[rd_kent]

44. Do you think LEPERS suffer?

That is what the OP is about, so lets just keep it there. Do you think lepers are suffering?


Its a simple yes or no question.

[Silent3]

46. Apparently, if they do suffer, it's somehow their fault...

...in the way they have exercised their free will, and God stands ready to provide all of the "spiritual Band-Aids and Neosporin" needed to deal with the problem.

[texastoast]

51. Yes, in my mind, they do n/t

[rd_kent]

53. So, you are the one in charge of determining what suffereing is?

Your post, exactly...

However, I really do want to know who is in charge of determining what is suffering

Are you in charge?

Do you think my suffering is valid? Who judges the validity of suffering?


So, you answered your own questions and YOU are the one in charge of that, huh?

Now that we have that cleared up....

[texastoast]

55. I'm in charge of me,

What I meant in the post you quote is that someone's suffering (and for that matter, someone's joy, hopelessness, jealousy, excitement, whatever) can be perceived as something else by someone else. When two different perspectives assess an event, often any difference between the two generally stems from unlike value systems supporting the two perspectives.

I'm in charge of my perspective on what I believe or what I declare to be so. Very different from being "in charge" of anything outside of that, which the quote addressed. The original conversation was about how the Amish shouldn't be happy about the opportunity to be a better person by serving ill children, at least that's the way I inferred it all.

[texastoast]

36. Oh, I'm afraid I must not have communicated what I meant just right

I meant that the sufferers can choose not to continue suffering. They are free to choose to end their own suffering. People do it all the time. Religious literature might prohibit it, but "god" does not. Does it make those left behind happy? Well, some people might be happy about someone else ending their suffering. That IS a possibility that no one controls. Others choose to accept another's actions in pain, sorrow, relief, or any number of other viewpoints. Do those of us left behind have a need to blame something for a grievous loss? Many do, whether it be the god, ourselves, the weather, the dealer, the perp, the traffic. God seems to be a favorite.

And those who would choose to reach out to relieve suffering--that is an act of free will to do so.

But a benevolent protector? I think not. That is Levite political myth to inspire control of the masses that has infiltrated much of Judeo-Christian culture.

Free will comes with a bit of a price, in my opinion.

[darkstar3]

37. "Suicide or suffering" is not a choice,

especially considering that each mammal is born with an innate survival instinct that makes suicide that much more difficult. It's true that this instinct can be and is overcome at times, but that does not make your dichotomy any more of a "choice."

I have to agree with trotsky. Your statements here carry with them a veiled cruelty that reflects poorly on God.

[texastoast]

38. So who chooses?

Who is responsible?

[darkstar3]

39. What?

I've read this subthread twice now just to make sure I didn't miss something, and I don't get what you're asking.

Who are you referring to? More importantly, what choice or responsibility are you referring to?

[texastoast]

40. Where does responsibility

lie for an act of suicide?

[darkstar3]

41. Ah, it's a rhetorical game, gotcha.

Let me enlighten you:

It is true that people choose to commit suicide, just as people choose to do so many other things in their daily lives. But that is not the point that I was making. There is a difference between choosing your actions and providing someone with a set of choices.

In the example you've given above, where suffering or suicide appear to be the only two available choices, there are two things you must understand:
1. To many, if not most people, death constitutes a form of suffering, and so the "choice" is taken away from them because both outcomes are the same.
2. More importantly, these two choices in your example are provided by God, a supposedly omnipotent being who could provide the person in question with any number of choices, but has instead provided them with two very similar, negative outcome choices.

You see, God in this example has taken the choice away from the person in question, and made it for himself. Further, in your example, he did it so that he could allow a different person to get closer to him, which fulfills only his own narcissistic needs.

Finally, in my worldview, the person is responsible for suicide, but not in your example. For the person in your example, God is responsible for their suicide. It was he who made the choice to place them in suffering, and it was he who gave them the opportunity to kill themselves, and it was he who took away from them any other choice to escape their suffering.

Free will always has been a cop-out, just like the mysterious ways clause, to help absolve God of his responsibility for the massive amount of death, pain, and suffering that has happened on his watch. Your version of free will, however, is even more twisted. In your version, God is directly involved, and actively selecting which choices the individual will have, limiting the possibilities so that you only have the free will to go where will benefit him and his glory most.

[texastoast]

43. I don't believe the way you describe at all

You argument limits God to providing only certain choices. Mine does not, or at least I certainly didn't intend to imply that. Given the same circumstances, two people choose differently. The next two people with the same circumstances can choose two other options, and so on. The palette of choices is boundless, limited only by our own conscious or unconscious filters and frames of reference. That God provides limited choices is a view to justify blame.

And as to free will, it's a real thing. It is not God's doing to stop people from living on a fault line or on the beach in hurricane alley. Would any good "Father" prohibit his child from trying to roller skate because the father knows that the kid is going to bust his butt? Fault line. Roller skates. Same deal. My God provides the spiritual Band-Aids and Neosporin after I fuck up, if I choose to allow it.

[Silent3]

45. You're comparing rollerskating and scraping your knee...

...to living on a fault line that you might not even know is there (not to mention all of the other natural disasters that can come at you completely out of the blue with no way to know how to avoid them), and getting your home destroyed, your arms and legs crushed, and your children killed?

And your God supposedly provides "spiritual Band-Aids and Neosporin" good enough to deal with that level of suffering, that somehow, someway, you're determined to classify as the victim's own "fuck up" that the victim "allows" to happen?

I can't tell if you really believe this shit, or if you're just stuck in bad argument and you don't know how to dig yourself out.

[texastoast]

50. I just have to end this

I'm just not doing well communicating that you and I simply cannot judge the validity of another's perspective, in my view, anymore than you and I can judge how a "victim" feels or relates to any event or circumstance. I can judge it for myself, but not for someone else.

I love metaphors, but I can see that some just can't seem to get the way I use them. I will keep practicing.

All I know for me is that those who blame God and apply value judgments for the way things go walk a different path than I walk.

I've had my share of "legitimate" devastation and this is what I have come to know--for me. I think you would agree that I have a "right" to blame God, but I choose not to. Things can always be "worse." Blame is just a waste of energy, time and health in lots of cases. Compassion, on the other hand, is most helpful fo all those involved.

Maybe it's time to go to Paris to look for answers to questions that bother me so. ;)

Peace and cheers.

[Silent3]

54. I don't blame what I don't believe in.

To me, God is a fictional character, an imaginary figure. My problem is with the God concept that some people have -- which is often of an inexplicably horrible character who somehow, even more inexplicably, is praised as "just" and "loving" and "merciful" in spite of His horrible behavior, or at least His cruel indifference.

I am perplexed, if not shocked, that people create this sort of deity in their minds, with such a terrible nature, and claim this God to be a source of inspiration, strength, and comfort.

[darkstar3]

48. .

Silent3 has you nailed in #42, but I'll just add that your post #43 here contradicts #36. In #36 you clearly laid out two choices for those whom God places in suffering as a "present" to others: continue to suffer, or end it all. Now you are claiming that there are a myriad of choices for this suffering individual. Which is it? If the latter, what are the other choices?

[ChadwickHenryWard]

59. Are you trying to tell us

that if you had 100% certain knowledge of when and where an earthquake was going to occur, you wouldn't tell anybody or attempt to help them in any way? And if I was a father, and I knew my kid was going to be killed or seriously injured from rollerskating, you're goddamned right I wouldn't let them do it. And how could you ever choose to to have leprosy?

[Silent3]

42. Do you even see how slippery and constantly shifting your argument is?

First you argue for an Amish point of view that considers disease and disabilities a "present" of some sort, for the wonderful opportunity such "presents" provide for others to act in a Christ-like fashion.

That's utterly twisted, however. What would you think of a parent who cut off their daughter's hands so that their son would have the "opportunity" to assist his poor disabled sister? Maybe God is that twisted, but then wouldn't you be agreeing to the first post you responded to in this thread, where someone described such a God as an asshole?

You wouldn't be trying to use the old circular argument that whatever God does is always good because God doing it makes it good? That which is hideously evil for a parent to do, like maiming their own children, becomes a "present" or a "gift" simply because God does it?

Do you wish to invoke the "God works in mysterious ways" gambit?

In this last post to which I'm now responding, you've almost come full circle to agreeing God is an asshole when you say:

But a benevolent protector? I think not. That is Levite political myth to inspire control of the masses that has infiltrated much of Judeo-Christian culture.

Free will comes with a bit of a price, in my opinion.

But you also pursue a line of argument that, well, maybe suffering isn't really suffering, maybe it just looks like suffering. If that's true, however, why should I bother to try to relieve apparent suffering myself, if it's just a make-believe game for testing my Christ-like capabilities?

Then somehow suffering isn't suffering because you can supposedly always escape it (which of course isn't even always true -- imagine the suffering of being in pain, completely paralyzed and unable to communicate, locked in your body slowly going crazy from pain and boredom and sensory deprivation, with killing yourself or even begging someone else to kill you not even possible), as if being forced to decide between continuing suffering and suicide isn't itself a decision that causes suffering by having to consider it.

Then at one point you sound a bit defensive and insulted, as if you're bothered by the idea someone might think you don't know what suffering is, implying, I think, that you're claiming to have experienced real suffering and you know what it is, and how dare anyone suggest you don't.

You also, of course, pull out the old "free will" chestnut, which, even if were willing to buy into it as far as one human having the "freedom" to cause another person to suffer, doesn't do a thing to explain God standing by while natural disasters inflict terrible suffering. Do we go back to the "present" from God idea for that, the wonderful "gift" of burying someone under a pile of rubble for days, injured, starving, and dehydrated, so that some other person gets to play Christ-like rescuer?

You have a comeback for each narrow point, but your argument doesn't form any cohesive whole, it's just a series of ad hoc reactions to evade the most current challenge presented to you, with little or no regard for whatever else you've previously said.

[texastoast]

52. Slippery?

Well, no, I don't see that it is slippery, but I do see that I'm having a helluva time trying to explain my perspective. I certainly don't feel compelled to try to convince you of anything. If you find my points narrow, you are certainly free to ignore everything I post.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

57. Wow, that's asoundingly evil.

A God who intentionally makes you sick is even worse than a God who can cure you but won't. I think that's more than a little unfair to those afflicted with disease/disability. God makes them suffer because so that others can be more like himself? He's made the afflicted secondary to the healthy, which, I should note, is contrary to the Enlightenment ideal we all hold so dear: that all are equal (though I wouldn't expect the Amish to believe in such a thing.) Of course, the healthy don't really benefit from "being more like Christ" - it just seems to me that God is stroking his own ego. That's not really a scenario that leaves God looking like a moral agent.

I've always been amazed that God is not held to the same moral standards as mortals. If god is the great giver of morals, we should expect better behavior from him, not worse. When somebody makes the objection, "Why won't god heal the disabled/sick" a whole bunch of apologists argue that God works in mysterious ways, or that he has a greater plan. God is always a moral actor when refusing to help others, or actively afflicting them in the of the Amish trope. But that's just silly. Nobody condemns doctors for trying to cure a disease or heal an ailment or attempt to mitigate or reverse a disability. Nobody objects that they might be upsetting some ineffable greater good. That would be ridiculous.

Man seems in this scenario a far more moral actor than God.

[rug]

11. That's just the flip side of saying God caused the Colts to win.

[rd_kent]

13. Who said or is saying that that? Anyone that does is just as crazy.

And if he did make the colts win, I KNOW he is an asshole! :)

[Laura902]

12. nice guy....

hes an example of how faith in a god can be a good thing and motivation to help others in great need

[Silent3]

47. Nice guy.

Funny hat.

[uberllama42]

63. I like his hat. n/t

[rd_kent]

49. Was it his faith in god or his digust in god?

I have been to Molokai and visited the colony and talked to some of the people still living there(you can too, you should check it out) and Father Damien is very respected but you may surprised at what his motivations were.....

[ChadwickHenryWard]

56. Should've been a little more careful.

He could've gone on doing good work if he hadn't contracted the disease. Martyrdom is impressive to some, but it's not very practical.