God Hates Torture But Pat Robertson Ain't Talking

[Mr. Ected]

He's more concerned with liberals defaming B*** and Cheney and Obama's wafflin' than the egregiousness of the torture itself.

If he's seeking salvation, he may be in for a big big surprise.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

1. Jesus loves torture?

Whoa. I must have missed that day in Catechism class.

Unless Robertson can blame it on the gays and lesbians, he's not talking.

Swine.......

[NYC_SKP]

2. Ain't talkin'? I heard about some special techniques that should make him talk.

My favorite talking point today:

The president has too much to do to go on witch hunts, things like the economy!

And who fucked up the economy?

How very convenient.

[Mr. Ected]

7. As Ashamed As I Am To Admit It, I Caught A Brief Snippet of Robertson Last Night

Didn't realize what I was watching at first glance, but turns out it was a CBN "news" piece on how schizophrenic Obama has been in his decision-making on prosecuting torturers.

Robertson's commentary after the propaganda piece was a "smear Obama" diatribe.

Meanwhile, the sin of sins was left untouched.

That people still believe Robertson to be some sort of holy man absolutely astonishes me.

Unfortunately, many fellow Americans will countenance torture because their clergy will not dissuade them from doing so.

[RandomThoughts]

3. Anyone that 'seeks' salvation would probably be surprised.

I think it is a gift given by God, not found by man.

I remember thinking on that on an episode of Stargate, where a bad character kept trying to find enlightenment, and tried to attack Daniel Jackson to get it.

And the bad character kept trying to find it from Daniel, but the character Daniel did not seek it, but just tried to make the best decisions he could. Yet he had (in stargate metaphor) the salvation.

Although I disagree with Stargate on many things, some I agree with, that little part of the film, within my interpretation, I found interesting.

I think people can seek peace, guidence, and help in many issues. But the gift of salvation I do not think is obtainable by the actions of man, but by the grace of God.

Sort of the idea if you are doing good to get into heaven, it wouldn't count, since it is actually selfish, or if you don't do bad because you fear hell, it wouldn't count. :shrug:

I sorta think about that sometimes.

[RagAss]

4. I agree. And when the enlightenment finally comes, the ego is gone, so...

there is nobody there to receive it....... :hide:

[RandomThoughts]

5. Interesting.

I think I understand your comment, but not sure I understand the nobody part. Are you saying that when we do reach a point were we understand, we don't exist?

That is a presumption of an outcome of enlightenment, so it might require enlightenment to understand. The removal of ego is spoken of by many, but to equate having ego to not having a self, I disagree with Although I might say that the self becomes of equal importance to the many. So individuality without connection to a larger world might go away, but there is still self in the interaction within the community, and free will.

I do understand many concepts or doctrines of non existence. Joker, Borg, holodeck/matrix, puppet, island. were you referencing one of these?

[RagAss]

6. My reference was to complete identification with Absolute Consciousness.

Non-doer-ship. The elimination of the illusion of volition. This concept dates back to the ancient Chan Masters, the founders of the philosophy that later became known as Zen.

[RandomThoughts]

8. Did they make a tv show about that doctrine?

:)
Ok a bit of a joke,( And now also a pun :) ) but lots of writers of books and TV put different elements of different doctrines in there shows, it is interesting to see writers explore different thoughts in shows.

More seriously, I think I understand that doctrine, much of it is the same as fate.

You see it in Norse doctrine also, well put in 13th warrior.
Ahmed Ibn Fahdlan: How can you sleep at a time like this?
Herger the Joyous: The All-Father wove the skein of your life a long time ago. Go and hide in a hole if you wish, but you won't live one instant longer. Your fate is fixed. Fear profits a man nothing.

The idea that we take part in existence with predestined roles.

The Joker doctrine, well said in batman films sometimes is a side effect of this, people think that they can not get out of the role they are in and life is just a joke, since they can't really make any choices.
Also shown in "are we dancers or are we human"
Monty Pythons, "the joke so funny when you read it you die"
And even that song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nTSU-mFWGs "The Show"
Also the watchtower speaks of joker http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_ncQgjIlFM

There are many here among us
Who feel that life is but a joke but uh
But you and I we've been through that
And this is not our fate
So let us not talk falsely now
The hours getting late

(I am not saying you think life is a joke, I am saying a offshoot of thinking everything is predestined can be despair, and people thinking of Joker doctrine, or even Trueman Show, in which they only try to find a way out instead of defeating the perception that created the trap.)

The same guy that played the Joker, Heath Ledger, also was in a movie Knights Tale, although it has parts I disagree with, I think it was much better then his role as Joker. It was a story of one changing his destiny.

Offshoots also contemplate the reason for existence, taking it out of some purpose for man, but instead a purpose for a higher group. Like in "Trueman show" where the reason for existence is to entertain others. Or like Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, where existence is to solve some puzzle for something else, or like unimatrix one, where people are neural nodes given an illusion of existence so they keep the communal system running for some other purpose outside of there known existence.

BUT!!!

Joker doctrine proves itself false, for if it was true that a person has no free will or choice, then they could not enter into joker mode where nothing matters because of there belief in the doctrine. And more importantly the doctrine is there to create despair and keep people from thinking they can make a difference.

Same with show doctrine or many others where people might think everything is predestined, it takes away an attempt to try to make choices that are better. Since they may think it is predestined.

Most of this is what I believe to be a faulty view of time, predestination is the thought of no free will, or life without volition.

Here is how I think of it, yesterday, what did you have for breakfast, think back on what you first ate yesterday. Nothing is going to change that, because it happened, and you know it, and no matter how long you think or try, what you had for breakfast will not change. So viewing yesterday from today you think of it as predestined, there is only one thing you had for breakfast. But yesterday, when you chose jam or jelly on your toast, it was a free will choice.

What seems to be predestination, may not be a person not having free will, but an ability to know what a person will choose, and that can create an illusion of predestination.

If I knew you were going to have eggs tomorrow for breakfast, it would not mean you had no free will, even if it is predestined to happen, for the knowing of the future event is only knowing of the free will choice that will be made in a future time, it does not remove free will. This however is viewed as predestination by many.

My personal belief is God prepares the way for people, he can run existence forward knowing the position and place of every atom and know an outcome, so he can prepare things for people that many see falsely as a change in past, when it was only knowing the future.

Man does the same thing on a smaller scale. A person sees a stock price going up or down based on patterns. So he buys or sells the stock, then what he thought would happen comes true. In some way he knew the future, but that future was not predestined it was created by the choice of many people buying and selling on the market.

People don't think of the stock market example the same way as the things God does, because God gets things correct at such an amazing level that people think it is predetermination or lack of choice.

So I think I understand your view of loss of free will being part of enlightenment, but I overcame that long ago, and believe it a false doctrine, which means, someone in that form of enlightenment may not be correct, or I could be wrong. So either I would learn them right as I learn more, or they would learn I was right as they learn more, since ideas are contradictory. Either way, neither could say they are enlightened, since both have an area they can not say for sure is correct, but can only say they believe is correct. I find that interesting.

Basically I think the thought of lack of free will is a trap taking someone off the path to what could be called enlightenment, since it can stop a person from doing or thinking anything has a meaning. It also is why many say knowing of the supernatural is death, since when someone falls into the trap of thinking nothing can be done, they are said to be dead by many. I don't believe that either, but it is an argument to hide the supernatural and its existence from people. Which is a possible bigger motive to making people think they have no choice or no way to change anything. So they hide the existence of the supernatural, which is also said to be a goal of evil. Evil tries to hide the existence of supernatural evil, so supernatural good is also ignored, then in secrecy evil still does its work, but so many don't believe in supernatural at all that good in the light has more of a tougher road.

On the topic of non-doership. I know the things I see are not done by me, but I have free will, because there are many things I see that I choose not to discuss, and some I think are interesting enough to talk about. Quite simply I make choices, of what elements of the do-ers, I think on and share, thereby being a part of existence. If you were to say I do not make any choices, that I only think I do, then it would not make sense that my actions are not always correct, or that I make mistakes. Although its easy to say all that was part of destiny, but I can imagine existence in many different ways, and I choose how I want to. I am very confident in the existence of free will.

I can assemble pieces of amazing things and make an entire temporal lore story, that makes sense and could be a doctrine I chose to believe, but in honesty I found flaws in temporal lore doctrine, so I do not believe it. But I could follow that doctrine, And I could defend it, I know its arguments to some extent. But I choose not to.

I could make a compelling argument for aliens, but I don't because there are flaws in that argument, but I could make that argument, but what I see as flaws keeps me from making that argument. By choice of how I weigh the evidence around me.

The final comment should be on things happening the way God wants it to happen. "thy will be done" Leading to the idea and my belief that God's final choice of outcome will be the outcome. But that does not remove free will. If God needs a cup of coffee to be given to a person, he may ask a person to do it, the person may say no, and God may find another person to deliver the coffee. Either way the coffee gets to the person God wanted to give it to. But each person had free will to take part or not in the issue.

Jonah and the whale puts a different spin on this, where he was, well literally tormented when he refused, but I take some issue with that story, for me it seems the good side does not make demands but asked people, and sometimes bad things happen if they don't 'do', but it may be that's why God asked them, because it would help both them and the things God wanted done.

Did the bad things happen to Jonah because he did not go to the town and do as God asked, or because he had such hatred for the people or even fear of them, allowing bad things in his heart that then made bad things happen, might God's request been an attempt to get Jonah to give up his hate and desire for destruction of that other city, knowing it was best for the city and for Jonah, trying to get him to lose the hate or fear, that causes problems like belly of whales. Just a thought. But do you see how the perception of the story can change from God striking down a disobedient, to trying to help someone with issues of fear or anger. Another part of free will, the choice of how we view the world around us.


Edit: just watching that video by Lenka, she is so beautiful, and not worrying about the particulars of the weirdness is good, but I disagree with Joker doctrine. But I do like her :)

Also there was a carton from 1970s where there were a group of characters, yogi bear, scrappy do, and a bunch others. In one of the episodes they kept looking for a better place, finally they ended up in space, and realized they could make their own home better, and maybe that is the place they were looking for. That episode reminds me not to live my life waiting to be in heaven, but to make the things around me, by choice of actions and perception, a little closer to heaven on earth.

[RagAss]

9. Excellent post... Should be it's own thread !

I guess what I am trying to say is without the ego-self there is no free will or predestination, since both would apply to an imaginary doer or receiver of fate..........the identification I speak of is not with the self(small "s") but instead with the Self(Consciousness), the observer of all thoughts and actions. I don't control my heartbeat or the functioning of my liver and I happen to think of my thoughts and ego in the same vein....an ego being a collection of thoughts about "me" stacked up over the years...but again that's just me.

My attempt at a pitiful analogy follows....

Joe is a happily married fellow with two beautiful children. One day during his lunch break he decides to take a walk. As he passes by a construction site a brick lands on his head and he is knocked unconscious and taken to a nearby hospital. After weeks of recovery, Joe regains all of his intellect and motor skills with the exception of his long term memory. Joe has no memory of his life as Joe. His wife and children seem like wonderful people, but he has no recollection of them and feels quite uncomfortable when they confront him with stories of their "happy life together". As time passes Joe makes the decision to leave his former family, now strangers, and move on to start a new life. Joe moves to another town and even decides to change his name to John, making a clean break from the past that he never knew. John eventually meets a women and falls in love. They are married and start a family together. ....blah blah blah...happily-ever-after.

My question....who is this man?
Is he Joe who later became John after a brain injury ?
Is he John who was formerly Joe the first ego so the "real" one?

My answer would be he was neither Joe or John.
He was the Consciousness that observed Joe and John at different points in time. Both identifications were wrong since they strayed from the observing consciousness that was always his true Self.
That consciousness is God.
"I AM THAT I AM" - Yahweh

[RandomThoughts]

10. Well within that context I have thought on that.

First I think I understand what you are saying, you are saying all are part of the same thing, and identity would be a mistaken misconception of just being part of some greater complete consciousness.

On the topic of having a memory, it is part of what makes a person think they are themselves. But there is another part to it.

Having some history in computer programming, I found an interesting analogy.

Imagine your character is the functions, the parts of a program that do everything, they analyze data and create action from that data, but in themselves they hold no data.

Then there is data itself, this is the memory of everything.

This is a common thing in programming, separating data from functionality.

Now imagine when a function is used, it gets stronger because of its use makes it a function called by other functions more often. So if you act with anger all the time, you will act with anger more and more. But the reaction still comes from some data stored as memory of some external event. That data then goes through the most used functions, and gets an outcome based both on the data, and how the person has acted in the past.

So now in your example, Joe and John have different memories, so they have different data. However the functions used and strengthened by Joe, are still part of John. Since the character is separate from memory or data, and can not be thought on, since it is not data, and only data goes through functions, which is what thinking is.

You can't put a function through a function, so John does not know the part of himself that is the same as Joe, since all data of Joe was removed.

This is an argument for soul, and some make it for ideas of reincarnation, which I do not believe in. But it can also be more then just for one person, if the functions become how information, knowledge, and morals are passed down from generation to generation. As culture creates ideas that are accepted or rejected, they become part of the next generation. But without data, they have no reality by themselves, but by applying information, events that occur, things we see, we process through the functions we both as a group and as individuals have decided to strengthen.

In my view there are two opposing forces trying to define those functions. Love Goodness Kindness, and the things of God, that better conscious you may be speaking about. And the absence of that conscious, or pure selfishness, through greed, anger jealousy, and hate.

Side note: That reminds me, havn't thought about it in awhile, I had an idea for a twilight zone like episode that has to deal with the combined conscious, I will have to post it here some day. I think it could be a good episode.

[RagAss]

11. WOW.. a fellow coder.....great analogy.

I'm 20 years into a programming career myself and I love the fact that you use the term programming and not the "software development" phrase that many of us old timers have grown to hate......old legacy guy here ...Mainframe based Cobol, IMS, DB2.....I get your analogy and I love it. In a completely different context, I use programming to describe the limited human experience of time and space....as opposed to the reality of eternal existence...

Eternal reality is a relational database. Tables of the past, present and future sit together side by side, loaded with data and with no priority given to past or future events.It is one thing. It is timeless. It is spaceless. It extends into time and space via the sentient beings of the Universe...We humans, limited by our small brains and sense perceptions, are forced to read a small portion of that vast body of data via a down-loaded flat file...sequential from top to bottom...from start to end of file...record after record...moment after moment..calling the "functional" sub-programs you describe so well in your post.....in the end we had a very limited experience...a cumbersome batch process if you will. One darn thing after another....And this is what we call Life.

Anyway...if you do decide to post that Twilight Zone episode, I'd enjoy reading it...I was a big fan of Serling and that show.

[RandomThoughts]

13. I think I get your analogy.

Existence of everything 'is'. And we process very small parts of existence based on some sql like statement, where we only get small bits of the totality of everything. You may also be saying the very moments of our existence, not just thoughts, are part of the database, making time space include more then thought data but actual physical existence also.

I assume when you say start to end, you mean regarding the life of a person, not the database, since it is described in your analogy as timeless.

I think that approach merges with my comment well, because the choice of data retrieved by the database comes from the persons choice of sql statement, which is part of the function part of the person, and so the view of everything says more about the person, by its choice of data retrieval, then it says about everything.

I would go further and say that all people, including myself, have at times better search parameters, and at times worse ones, creating a moment in time that is inaccurate because the filter of the individual search is based on a bad or bias sql.

Before making a decision, we create a sql to pull out data we are aware of, that sql is made based on many things, our desires, our character, and many times governed by the conclusion we want, and not what the data says. Then even when the data comes back it gets further diluted by being put through functions that if they don't match a requested conclusion create new sql's to further distort, until the view of the data fits what we want and not the data itself.

It sorta makes looking at the sql a person creates a more important factor in determining if there conclusion is correct. What is there intent, and what is there bias when thinking on memories, what data do they choose to ignore, and what data do they consider relevant for creating action through the functions of there character.

I know I do this also, many times I ignore parts of things to get a different view of things like TV shows, I ignore the parts I don't like, so it does not take the enjoyment away (based on my views). Although I know I could assemble different meanings by thinking on different parts of things. My 'view of a show' is my choice of sql, looking at some other persons conclusions from there sql of the data, they know exist in the database, based on there experiences.

So thinking about it, there are many dynamic tables, and even feedback loops, where we do not only grep out of the database, but we actually grep through chains of other peoples sql's where they looked at the database and then created dynamic tables from there query. For example, I can not directly sql data on the Punic wars, but I can look up a secondary table, made from an sql of a writer that studied the conclusions based on a sql of a person that was actually there.

And many times my sql might just be a grep into one of my own previous conclusions, or dynamic tables, due to me having accepted the table as accurate, and not being willing to recheck my original conclusions with going back to base data that created it.

So the database has many tables created by sqls of many people, each branched off the main database, which leads someone to think, the closer you can get to the database by creating sqls off of the main table, and not conclusions from others sqls the more accurate you might be.

Interesting analogy, and it created some interesting thought on the subject of formation and holding of ideas.

[RandomThoughts]

14. Ah ha!!! dynamic tables.

If the dynamic tables are conclusions by an individual that are used in other peoples sqls then those dynamic tables are only kept in the database when they are known of, if they are no longer known by any person, they would no longer be accessible to people.

Leading to the idea, if a person thinks 'thought' is the essence of a person that can be left to exist beyond there life, (not my view) Then when a person is forgotten, they no longer exist! Which fits the idea in some shows that if you ignore something it loses its power, which is why ideas that people don't like are not given a platform to speak those ideas.

However, many ideas could continue in secondary or third interpretations of an original, Socrates is a good example, his original dynamic table of his results from sql on data, were lost. But because some students took his conclusions, and wrote them down, a pretty straight forward translation of his dynamic table(you would think), but what they considered important enough to remember mixed with their own bias, was the sql that created their reports of Socrates writings.

Anyway, this sort of answers a few ideas for me, why people speak of being forgotten is loss of all power, although I disagree with it. But more importantly it explains targeted attempts by different structures of power to get their dynamic tables in front of as many people as possible, or to keep other peoples tables from being seen. Censorship, big megaphone information exchange, and even how systems are indexed become important.

[RagAss]

15. You've expanded on this very well...sounds like the outline of a theory of reality...

In my analogy, an sql statement would represent a higher level of intelligence than the average human. I use the old example of a sequential file as the only type of data access available to us. It represents the small piece of data extracted for us exclusively, based on the point of time we become manifested in the physical Universe. By top to bottom, I meant from birth to death. Yes, the data(tables) in my model, is consciousness itself representing all that is at all times since it exists eternally. In a way it relies on its lesser creations(sentient beings...the "programs") to see itself. Data is the "goods". But data cannot view itself. The Data (Consciousness-God) needed these lesser forms to see itself....that's my strange belief anyway.....why else are we here?

[RandomThoughts]

18. I think I understand your point

Where the data in the database is the all encompassing existence, consciousness-God, it requires the processing of people to become seen or manifest in a way that gives it functioning existence.

If God existed completely alone, he would still be, but there would be no usage of his existence. And even God would not have a method of seeing himself in any way that includes the possibility of time(or things changing since time is stopped without something changing.) Nor could he see himself from the basis of effect, since non of the choices of being a part of his existence, by processing the data that is God, could happen without something to process it.

With a people to share in the data, that is God in the metaphor, the existence has meaning. And even a new form of existence, since functionality of lesser people, creates things that can be viewed, and is not just one state. And through the sharing of the data, by the thoughts and actions of people, Gods existence can be seen, since his existence is not a single state, but is a continual changing state, based in part on how people chose to process the data, that in metaphor, is God.

I think I understand what your view on it is.

[RagAss]

19. Yes...that is my view exactly.

Thanks for sharing your views as well...enjoyed it !

[Octafish]

12. Pat Robertson wanted to assassinate Hugo Chavez.

Funny thinking, coming from Pass-The-Loot Pat "The Liquor Officer" Robertson.

[spanone]

16. i haven't heard any CHURCH LEADERS speaking out on this....hypocritical fucks

[rucky]

17. But he's most concerned with selling his weight-loss shakes. n/t