6 ms·

That God kinda-became human to "sacrifice" himself (with no loss, got up 3 days later to live forever, nothing was sacrificed) in order to forgive the sins of p

That God kinda-became human to "sacrifice" himself (with no loss, got up 3 days later to live forever, nothing was sacrificed) in order to forgive the sins of people, but only if they believe it, isn't spiritual, it's silly. You owe someone something, and someone else or that person pays it for you -- but if you don't believe that happened, it never happened. Great stuff. I don't need to have an answer for life, the universe and everything to reject that kind of answer. It smells way too much of humans. The Bible even has a bit where it says a pot should not criticize his potter for making it crooked -- while the potter blaming and condemning the pot he made is perfectly fine and sane. If you have a problem and try to fix it with such things, you now have two problems. "Jesus can save you, if you let him" -- nope, he can just do it if he exists and gives a fuck about anything other than playing abusive games. The Quran is no better, with God bragging how he could have made everyone rightly guided but didn't because he promised to fill hell with people and djinn and always keeps his promises. It all boils down to "might is right". That stuff isn't insane, by definition, at least to those who actually lap it up, because God threatens the people who reject it. If a God exists, and made clouds and sparrows and sunshine and love, I would basically be spitting in his face for even considering any that sordid stuff. You might say I know my shepherd's voice, and differentiate it from humans in a trench coat pretending to be a giant, which sounds like nails on a chalkboard to me. I can dig Meister Eckhart, anything below that is just brown shirt antics in my sight, and my reaction to it was and is "come at me, bro". Don't tell me my knee will bend, bend it. Shit or get off the pot. And people who are fine with being saved from eternal torture through essentially random chance ("being pulled"), while others who are every bit as bad as them get tortured forever, who are crying tears of gratitude while looking the other way, are not the ones I would want to spend eternity with.

ensignavenger 3y ago
Yes, some of those things do sound silly... but they are not at all what most Christians believe.
- psiops 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - ensignavenger 3y ago
    I wouldn't try to define a "true" Christian. But not any of the many Christian I have ever spoken to about their beliefs, nor any of the many Christian denominations I am familiar with.
- kawhah 3y ago
  Which part of the following is not believed by most Christians? > That God kinda-became human to "sacrifice" himself (with no loss, got up 3 days later to live forever, nothing was sacrificed) in order to forgive the sins of people, but only if they believe it
  - ensignavenger 3y ago
    All of it? Specifically, the 'kind-of' - most Christians beleive Jesus was fully human/mortal. 'with no loss'- most Christians beleive Jesus gave the ultimate sacrifice, not only his mortal life, bit also profound and incomphrensible suffering (don't forget the events in Gethsemane, not just at the hands of the Sanhedrin and the Romans). Also his sacrifice went far beyond forgiving sins of beleivers. It included the promise of eventual resurection for for everyone, not just beleivers. (Details can vary among sects as well as individual persons as to the full impact of Christs sacrifice and resurection on unbeleivers, but the vast majority do beleive that there are effects for everyone, regardless of belief in this life or the next). Christianity and its doctines are much deeper and richer on these topics than this characature would imply.
    - kawhah 3y ago
      1. ok, so the word 'kinda' is not an essential part of the doctrine, got it. 2. 'profound and incomprehensible suffering' - what is Jesus supposed to have suffered which is different from many other humans who have been betrayed, tortured and killed? Whatever you think it is, it appears to be extra-biblical. The Gethsemane quote is just "my soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death". Allowing for loss in translation this is an expression of suffering well within human experience. 3. 'the vast majority do beleive that there are effects for everyone, regardless of belief in this life or the next' Sorry, no. The vast majority of modern Christians belong to churches for which 'sola fide' is not just an essential part of their theology, but the foundation of their existence.
      - explaininjs 3y ago
        Rather, the lack of the word "kinda" is an essential part of the doctrine. And everyone is affected: even if they may not be saved, they are all still resurrected in the end days. This is uncontroversial, and documented throughout the bible. Here is a summary: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/will-all-people-be-resurrected-or-just-believers https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/will-all-people-be-resu...
mistermann 3y ago
> It smells way too much of humans. It's a shame you can only experience your comment from your perspective.
explaininjs 3y ago
Consider you are developing a genetic algorithm with the goal of creating a cohort of entities that have the ability to pursue light. Each generation, you initialize a set of start states based on the prior generation and let things play out according to your rules. In the end, you persist those that found the light by taking their information and carrying it on in some sense in the next generation. The information of those that did not find the light is discarded. Now, you are the author of the entire creation. At any point you can intervene in any way you want, for instance to relocate an entity that was very far from the light to be much closer to it. And you do indeed do this quite regularly. In fact a large amount of what you do as the author is go out to find the entities that are very far from the light and shepherd them back to be close to it. Sometimes, this relocation sticks: the entity sees the light, recognizes it, and continues to pursue it. Sometimes, it doesn't: the entity either wanders around aimlessly with no regard for the direction of the light, or indeed it actively pursues darkness. At the end of the generation you have a spectrum of entities: those who never left the light, those who strayed occasionally but always took to your shepherding back, ..., all the way to those who actively ran away from the light at every opportunity. So yes, you are the author. You have complete control over how all these entitles move into the next generation, and you can save all of them if you'd like. But why would you?
- kawhah 3y ago
  If the goal is to evolve an entity which can pursue light independently, why compromise this goal by "relocat[ing] an entity that was very far from the light to be much closer to it"? And if the goal is just to allow as many entities as possible to enjoy the light, why not relocate them all to be close to it? Why not save all of them into the next generation?
  - explaininjs 3y ago
    You know that small difference in the initial conditions of an entity can play a large role in the path it follows, and you further know that an entity which is spawned into a position where the light is very faint is less likely to be able to pursue it. You sometimes put new creations in which you have much confidence into initial conditions where they are very unlikely to survive, as a means of testing them (perhaps there is another "level" they are taken to to train a new feature once this stage is mastered). If they do not end up being able to pursue the light in those initial conditions, you might indeed let their information perish. But you might instead want to see if they could find the light when moved somewhat closer to it, as a way of checking if their ability is entirely busted or simply not as sensitive as you thought it might be. > And if the goal is just to allow as many entities as possible to enjoy the light, why not relocate them all to be close to it? Why not save all of them into the next generation? I'm not sure that is the goal, but regardless your machine only has finite resources, but is changed with presenting an infinite environment. Sacrifices must be made.
2devnull 3y ago
That’s a really long response for something you feel is trivially silly. Maybe it’s cognitive dissonance?
dang 3y ago
Please don't take HN threads further into religious flamewar. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

ensignavenger 3y ago

Yes, some of those things do sound silly... but they are not at all what most Christians believe.

psiops 3y ago
[flagged]
- ensignavenger 3y ago
  I wouldn't try to define a "true" Christian. But not any of the many Christian I have ever spoken to about their beliefs, nor any of the many Christian denominations I am familiar with.
kawhah 3y ago
Which part of the following is not believed by most Christians? > That God kinda-became human to "sacrifice" himself (with no loss, got up 3 days later to live forever, nothing was sacrificed) in order to forgive the sins of people, but only if they believe it
- ensignavenger 3y ago
  All of it? Specifically, the 'kind-of' - most Christians beleive Jesus was fully human/mortal. 'with no loss'- most Christians beleive Jesus gave the ultimate sacrifice, not only his mortal life, bit also profound and incomphrensible suffering (don't forget the events in Gethsemane, not just at the hands of the Sanhedrin and the Romans). Also his sacrifice went far beyond forgiving sins of beleivers. It included the promise of eventual resurection for for everyone, not just beleivers. (Details can vary among sects as well as individual persons as to the full impact of Christs sacrifice and resurection on unbeleivers, but the vast majority do beleive that there are effects for everyone, regardless of belief in this life or the next). Christianity and its doctines are much deeper and richer on these topics than this characature would imply.
  - kawhah 3y ago
    1. ok, so the word 'kinda' is not an essential part of the doctrine, got it. 2. 'profound and incomprehensible suffering' - what is Jesus supposed to have suffered which is different from many other humans who have been betrayed, tortured and killed? Whatever you think it is, it appears to be extra-biblical. The Gethsemane quote is just "my soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death". Allowing for loss in translation this is an expression of suffering well within human experience. 3. 'the vast majority do beleive that there are effects for everyone, regardless of belief in this life or the next' Sorry, no. The vast majority of modern Christians belong to churches for which 'sola fide' is not just an essential part of their theology, but the foundation of their existence.
    - explaininjs 3y ago
      Rather, the lack of the word "kinda" is an essential part of the doctrine. And everyone is affected: even if they may not be saved, they are all still resurrected in the end days. This is uncontroversial, and documented throughout the bible. Here is a summary: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/will-all-people-be-resurrected-or-just-believers https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/will-all-people-be-resu...

mistermann 3y ago

> It smells way too much of humans. It's a shame you can only experience your comment from your perspective.

explaininjs 3y ago

Consider you are developing a genetic algorithm with the goal of creating a cohort of entities that have the ability to pursue light. Each generation, you initialize a set of start states based on the prior generation and let things play out according to your rules. In the end, you persist those that found the light by taking their information and carrying it on in some sense in the next generation. The information of those that did not find the light is discarded. Now, you are the author of the entire creation. At any point you can intervene in any way you want, for instance to relocate an entity that was very far from the light to be much closer to it. And you do indeed do this quite regularly. In fact a large amount of what you do as the author is go out to find the entities that are very far from the light and shepherd them back to be close to it. Sometimes, this relocation sticks: the entity sees the light, recognizes it, and continues to pursue it. Sometimes, it doesn't: the entity either wanders around aimlessly with no regard for the direction of the light, or indeed it actively pursues darkness. At the end of the generation you have a spectrum of entities: those who never left the light, those who strayed occasionally but always took to your shepherding back, ..., all the way to those who actively ran away from the light at every opportunity. So yes, you are the author. You have complete control over how all these entitles move into the next generation, and you can save all of them if you'd like. But why would you?

kawhah 3y ago
If the goal is to evolve an entity which can pursue light independently, why compromise this goal by "relocat[ing] an entity that was very far from the light to be much closer to it"? And if the goal is just to allow as many entities as possible to enjoy the light, why not relocate them all to be close to it? Why not save all of them into the next generation?
- explaininjs 3y ago
  You know that small difference in the initial conditions of an entity can play a large role in the path it follows, and you further know that an entity which is spawned into a position where the light is very faint is less likely to be able to pursue it. You sometimes put new creations in which you have much confidence into initial conditions where they are very unlikely to survive, as a means of testing them (perhaps there is another "level" they are taken to to train a new feature once this stage is mastered). If they do not end up being able to pursue the light in those initial conditions, you might indeed let their information perish. But you might instead want to see if they could find the light when moved somewhat closer to it, as a way of checking if their ability is entirely busted or simply not as sensitive as you thought it might be. > And if the goal is just to allow as many entities as possible to enjoy the light, why not relocate them all to be close to it? Why not save all of them into the next generation? I'm not sure that is the goal, but regardless your machine only has finite resources, but is changed with presenting an infinite environment. Sacrifices must be made.

2devnull 3y ago

That’s a really long response for something you feel is trivially silly. Maybe it’s cognitive dissonance?

dang 3y ago

Please don't take HN threads further into religious flamewar. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html