MEMBER LOGIN   |   Username: Password:
Twitter: (The Twitter thing is temporarily down due to a Twitter-related bug or something!)
Recent Updates: The New Site is now open! (6 years ago) Which of [these facial express... Vulpin Adventure OST| "Blast to the past!", a review of Plazma Burst 2 by Rating Orb Duogduogduog
Pseudolonewolf`s Avatar A Perfect Father Mon 24th May 2010 1:29pm

Category: Religion

It's Monday, not Sunday, but I didn't write this yesterday because I've got so little to report. It's been very much a 'business as usual' week, I think; lots of procrastination and some bug fixing on MARDEK. I've yet to hear much from sponsor-type people, which is sort of worrying, so if I don't hear back in a few days, I'll contact them and ask whether they're still interested or something.
I'm not in a hurry to do that right now though because I do still have quite a lot to add and fix.

Since I don't have a whole lot to report, I'll mention something that's been on my mind.

Imagine a man, a billionaire, who gained his wealth from making some huge corporation or something which is really important to the world. He's got a great public image, and everyone sees him as the Father Of The Modern World and thinks he's great and nice and kind and so on.
He lives in an enormous mansion, and he has two young children, who are just toddlers at this time.
He wants them to grow up with good morals, so then they'll not end up spoiled, so he wants to use a degree of discipline. Fair amounts of it, mind; nothing too extreme and cruel.
He's got a fondness for alcohol, and since he's a billionaire, he's recently acquired a rather expensive bottle of wine, so he plonks it on a small table in the middle of one of the most used rooms in the house, where the children often play. As you do. Alcohol isn't for children though, so he takes his two toddlers to the table, points at the booze, and specifically says that they are NOT TO TOUCH IT. No. They'll regret it if they do, because alcohol does bad things to you and only grown-ups are safe to drink it. He's raised them well so far, so they say okay, and generally avoid it.
This man has a butler, but he's a bit of a mean fellow because he's bitter due to his meagre pay; he feels that his master earns billions every day so he should afford to give him much more than he actually does. So this butler has a malicious streak in him, and sees a bit of fun in mischief. He goes to the toddlers, and tells them that it's okay to drink the wine because their father said so; he basically encouraged them to drink it since they said they were old enough.
The children, being so young as to NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG and gullible because of their naivete, just trust this other adult authority figure and assume that what he's saying is true; they don't know what lies are yet. So, they go and have a sip of the wine, because they were told it was okay. They didn't do it of their own accord - they were avoiding it because they were told not to touch it - but because the butler assured them it was okay. They had no real reason to NOT trust him; their father never told them not to.
Also note that since this man is a billionaire, he has the best security money can buy; his house is full of security cameras that track everything, and he's a tad paranoid so he's always keeping an eye on them. It allows him to let his children roam free in the house while he's off doing work, and so on. So he's watching the butler tell this lie to the children, and watching the children drink the wine, and not going to stop them until after it's happened.

Now, it has happened, and he confronts the children, this nice, kind, friendly billionaire with a strict moral code. What should he, a great and loving father, do?

He should give them a stern word and explain to them why it was wrong, maybe give them a slap on the bum, etc, and punish the butler, right? After all, it was mostly the butler's fault. He should make them well aware of what they did wrong so then they can't repeat the mistake again and will learn from it, but he did sort of set himself up for this by putting the wine where he did, especially since they're just children, so he shouldn't punish them for too long. Maybe deprive them of toys for a day or two or something. That'd be a loving thing to do, while keeping his strict adherence to morality, right?

Well, he doesn't do that. That'd HARDLY be discipline, would it? Only a sissy would do that, and this man's no sissy.
He does absolutely nothing to the butler, for a start; he gets to keep his job and his wages and nothing changes after that act of mischief.
As for his naughty, naughty children, however... well! They really will need to regret this act of rebellion and defiance to their dear loving father who brought them into this world, who cared for them, who gave them a roof over their heads.
For starters, he kicks them out of the mansion forever; there's no living in luxury after a mistake like THAT! What arrogant, disobedient children they are. Ugh, it makes him SICK to think of how defiant they were towards him! Like they had no respect for authority or love for him at all!
THEN he uses his connections - and he has a lot of them, being one of the most powerful, rich and influential men in the world - to make sure that they can't ever get jobs, or earn too much money; he wants them to live as homeless vagrants and join gangs or something like that, to show how hard life is if they shun their dear father. He makes sure that there's no chance that they, their children, their children's children, etc, etc, are never allowed to come to any family reunions again; they're officially ostracised.
BUT! He still loves them, since they're his flesh and blood, after all. He cries himself to sleep every night at what he had to do to them for naively doing what the butler said as if they were toddlers or something, which they were. He decides to give them a way to rejoin the family, but they have to do a lot of sucking up in the process.
He uses his power and influence to hide a bunch of cryptic clues all over the place telling them what they have to do to rejoin his family and get back in the mansion. However, he doesn't actually come to them personally and tell them what to do; that'd be far too easy and would be interfering with their freedom to live life as they want to (that is, on the streets or in ditches). He even hires a society of Downs Syndrome people to write a book for him containing these strict rules that they must follow, which is published, but not given to them directly.

It doesn't end there, though. As he can see that these children of his - who now have many children of their own - are being rough and immoral due to their LIFE ON THE STREETS WITHOUT HIS PERSONAL GUIDANCE, and are illiterate and aren't actively looking for these rules because he never told them about them, he feels that he needs to be more clear.
He has another son that was born since these other children left, and this son is very noble indeed since he was actually able to grow up with his father. HE didn't drink a sip of alcohol when he was a baby!
The father loves this other son very much... but he feels bad about his other children's lives of misery, violence, poverty, etc, so he sends this other son out onto the streets to experience that too, and to hopefully teach these crude common people some lessons and make them better people.
It goes moderately well for a while - this son is rather charismatic and his moral conscience is strong indeed due to his upbringing - but then the father does what he planned from the start. He uses his power and influence to hire some policemen to capture this son of his, and to put him up for public execution on live television. This son is to die on the electric chair, as a punishment to make up for what his other children did. Confusing? It is, isn't it?
The father feels that in order to forgive his other, wayward children, rather than just, y'know, *forgiving* them, he must rob himself of this just and righteous Perfect Son of his, execute him before the world, then have some other mentally-handicapped people write some confusing literature about the event and how it means that he now forgives his other children... sort of. They still have to find all the rules and so on; it's just that if they write to him and say that they saw the execution and it really meant a lot to them, then he'd be more willing to forgive them and send them a copy of the rules personally. Or something to that effect.

It's a big mangled mess and the man dies unhappy, but the offspring of his wayward children still seek means to get back into the mansion, not knowing that he's dead. They convince themselves that he's merely gone into hiding or something...? I don't know.

What words would you use to describe such a man? Would they be things like 'kind', 'loving', 'merciful', 'the perfect father', etc? o_O


303 Commentson 91 roots

Flemdog42`s Avatar
Rating Orb Flemdog42 14 United States SanguineMelancholic 51C 87F
7 years ago | (1)
Ah, very clever, Pseudo, very clever indeed. This was a rather wonderful way to skirt around the Adam and Eve story and turn it into something more relatable and easier to answer. I think we all find it easier to describe a billionaire than a deity. So if this was on your mind, does that mean Christianity was on your mind as well? Anyways, that was perhaps the most clever post of yours yet. This "Man" should have never hired the "butler" without a little backround checking, eh? If he knew that this butler had some cruel intentions (as both billionaires and deities should), he should have never selected him. To describe this man, despite being Aetheist/Agnostic, I'd have to say "cruel," "overprotective," "quick to act," and say that "he is not one who thinks things through." But if God is supposed to have preploanned events, and knows all that has/will/is happened/happening, how could he not see this coming? He should've at least had a firm talk with Satan before throwing his kids into the "slums" and killing the perfect child! But anyways, this is a great metaphor, and you almost had me fooled into spilling my beleifs in both God AND Bill Gates. Well done, Pseudolonewolf, well done.
Flemdog42`s Avatar
Rating Orb Flemdog42 14 United States SanguineMelancholic 51C 87F
7 years ago | (1)
And I also think that Jesus shouldn't have been the perfect child, he should have been the father himself. The "public execution" would've been the father, say, taping his own suicide. He would later be "resurrected" by the paramedics even when they beleived him to be dead. This really is the perfect metaphor, though.
KK Twain`s Avatar
Rating Orb KK Twain 17 United States CholericPhlegmatic 18C 0F
7 years ago | (3)
Wow, this is hilarious! It took me until I was half way through before I understood what was going on. I've always thought that the story of Adam and Eve was nonsensical, and this is probably the best way to describe it. (Although, you forgot the part where it was the girl's fault ;) ) I think I'm going to save this, it might come in handy later.
Spe`s Avatar
Rating Orb Spe 16 United States PhlegmaticCholeric 108C 43F
7 years ago | (5)
Pseudo, if you ever do see this, I urge you to at least read what I have to say - only 1753 letters.

I think that you certainly misinterpreted the story. If you read what Abishai and thunderdude7 said, there are several factors you misinterpreted or left out, the most important of which being that Jesus WAS brought back to life, and that Jesus is actually a part of God himself, not so much his son as it is often said... All I ask of you really is that you know all the facts before making an argument. There is still very much validity to our belief. And those things you said about Chrisianity being about "Kill all unbelievers!" or something like that, and about "Christians only being nice because they don't want to go to hell" Are NOT Christianity. Those beliefes are found in the Islam religion. Islam is about killing all who oppose (refer to the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers - Done by Muslims for the purpose of killing Christians.) And Islam says that you have to be "good enough" to get into Heaven. Now, if you knew Christianity better, you would know that you get into Heaven regardless, you could have been a mass-murderer who killed 89 people and still become a Christian and go to Heaven. And that is obviously quite different than your story, because in your story the children need to find "cryptic clues" and "need to do a lot of sucking up in the process". Now, that is very much true with Islam, needing to be nice all the time and always worship their God. But this is not so with Christianity. I know, it is a common mistake to get facts from the two beliefs mixed up, but once again please dont ridicule something that you don't know all the facts of yet. And if you read this - Thank you for listening to what I have to say.
Pseudolonewolf`s Avatar
Rating Orb A β Pseudolonewolf 23 United Kingdom MelancholicPhlegmatic 2257C 559F
7 years ago | (4)
I think that I do know 'all the facts' about this issue but didn't include every niggling little detail that I wrote in this post months ago (though I should have tried to, anticipating Believers to focus on every little thing I missed).
I spend a huge amount of time reading about 'Religion' as an issue, reading all the details and all the views from 'both sides' (I say 'both' as if there's only two because I generally focus on 'religion itself' vs atheism, particularly Christianity since it's the dominant religion of my culture(s)). So I must say that I do know what I'm talking about, at least.

One of the things I and others clearly notice is that every Christian has a different set of beliefs; I've heard it said that 'there are as many Christianities as there are Christians'. And every different believer or group can look at the Bible and *prove* that they're the only ones interpreting it right while everyone else is interpreting it incorrectly.
Some claim that the Trinity is true and God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are three-in-one (which is suspiciously close to polytheism), while others claim that Jesus was merely God's 'son'. I've seen both views argued with Bible quotes and things like that, from Believers.
Others feel that certain actions are required to go to Heaven, others insist that all you need to do is *believe*, others say you need to 'accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour', others still claim, with a bit of wishful thinking, that everyone of any faith, good or evil, goes to Heaven without fail.

The Bible does and doesn't support any and all of these views. It's such a garbled and contradictory mess that it's easy to find support for your own beliefs while ignoring the rest and calling it 'metaphor' or saying that you have to 'look at what the big picture is, not the details', or saying that things have 'changed' in some way (like Jesus making the Old Testament irrelevant and so on).
The Bible is quite clear that you do have to do certain things to gain Jesus' favour; 'just believing' isn't good enough.
The Old Testament is also *full to the brim* of 'slaughter this, slaughter that', smashing babies on rocks to please God, massacring every man, woman and child of a certain tribe, God smiting his own people for some slight slight. It's so distressingly easy to bring up insanely barbaric OT stories that God is supposed to have done, but I won't bother because I know that the common responses are denial and the 'Jesus nullified the OT' (despite the fact that he says that 'not one jot nor tittle' should be lost from the old laws, and God is supposed to be non-changing according to the Bible itself and many believers).

Anyway, it's wishful thinking, the whole lot of it. Believing in God in the first place, then making up your own terms with which to win his favour since Christianity is all very much a religion of convenience.
(And I won't even get onto the sheer nonsensicality of God sacrificing himself to himself to appease himself; who was he trying to impress? Why couldn't he just *forgive*? Why the need for a blood sacrifice? Oh, right; the Bible firmly establishes that he's fond of the smell of burning flesh, time and again.)

I invite you to watch this and other similar videos: [LINK]
Firestorm65`s Avatar
Rating Orb Firestorm65 21 United States MelancholicCholeric 15C 28F
7 years ago | (2)
It is quite disappointing to see a defender of faith use cheap tricks to avoid the issue. You see, Islam is not the religion of constant Crusade just as Christianity is not the religion of no Crusades. You have extremists who use snippets of the book to attract ignorant people to their cause, but it has few real ties to the original religion. The point Pseudo is trying to make is a perfect God of love and peace would not need the characters introduced in the New Testament or the behavior recorded in the Old Testament, he would simply forgive and enlighten his children.

"you could have been a mass-murderer who killed 89 people and still become a Christian and go to Heaven" - this doesn't concern you when people like Gandhi are supposedly exiled to hell based on an emotional belief? Perhaps anyone can repent, but you chose a poor example and hoped people would interpret generously. Because if you read this cynically, you just said your religion is "do whatever the hell you want, but make sure you say 'Sorry Jesus' right before you die". You don't seem to know your faith as well as Pseudo, despite your claim, and you present even less knowledge of Islam besides 9/11 equals Jihad.

There are still arguments to be made for religion, but you are debating at a too low level (i.e. emotionally) to be taken seriously.
Spe`s Avatar
Rating Orb Spe 16 United States PhlegmaticCholeric 108C 43F
7 years ago | (1)
Okay, well. I do see both of your points now, I suppose I should investigate my beliefs deeper... But I do know that there are many different "forms" of Christianity, some of them people just interpreting the Bible to fit their own needs, because it does unfortunately use a lot of metaphors...

But I do still think those "niggling little details" are really important to give an accurate representation of the subject.
1 Reply
DonPianta`s Avatar
Rating Orb DonPianta 16 United Kingdom SanguineMelancholic 8C 5F
7 years ago | (5)
Although I believe in Islam so for my religion a lot of this is not what I personally believe in but anyway.
If this was a man I would say that he is a complete ignorant moron and should develop a better sense
for punishment and for gathering facts. But the fact remains he didn't know the butler said this so he wouldn't know.

But this person is not a man he is God and if he is God he simply cannot be judged on the same scale a mortal human being could be.
Shoku_Smurf`s Avatar
Rating Orb Shoku_Smurf 16 Ireland CholericPhlegmatic 10C 85F
7 years ago | (0)
It took me until the VERY end to realize this was about God! In fairness, in your story, the Father doens't bring the son back to life, and the point wasn't to spend eternity in heaven, rather than a mansion. Eternity trumps mansion! Still, good story =]
Cardbord`s Avatar
Rating Orb Cardbord 30 Sweden 2C 0F
7 years ago | (0)
Because Atheism is more than a subculture, (it is a philosophical stand point on the nature of the universe, and it has an entry in every dictionary) it will not simply change its definition, even though many people want it to... I believe it will branch however (the sad day when I will stop calling myself one). I foresee a new entry under the dictionary heading of Atheist in the future:

"A person that believes in attacking religious views, institutions or people based on the idea that religion is bad for humanity. Especially the muslim religion. Synonyms: Hirsi alienist, Dawkinian, Hitchensian, islamofob"

Not that I am implying that Pseudolonewolf have done any such thing with hies written piece, or in the replies he gave in this forum(absolutely not). He simply stated what he believes, a tiny part of his belief system (the atheism part). Unlike religion, atheism does not constitute a belief system (going by what the term STILL means today). Together with loads of other stuff, we might have atheism as part of a belief system, but in itself it is not. Of all possible belief systems, the religious ones are a subset. They require belief in the supernatural. Thus Atheism is not a religion, but the definition might well change to be a basis for a belief system (as in the "dictionary entry").

Atheism requires faith claims, this is true in one sence of the word faith. It requires axioms of belief. As with religious people, we have to say that we take it on faith, that the world we see around us is not some computer generated reality, where the machines have taken over. Being an atheist is simply to say that you have faith that the world is explainable in non religious terms. The religious person will always have an easier explanation. "God did it" does explain everything. It is so easy, and so comforting, and really very natural to humans.

I believe:
If one has questions, and is worried that answers will not be given, then religion is a path to relieve you.
If one has questions, and is worried about running out of them, then being an atheist is a better path.

I know that my path will never answer all my questions, but "thank god" for that. To have all questions answered would be a dreadful thing for me. What would I think about while in the bathroom? If I did not have something to ponder, while doing no.2... what should I then use my brain for. I suppose just closing my eyes and feel the presence, love and all knowing father who will welcome me into his mansion is another option, but it does not relieve me personally.
Cardbord`s Avatar
Rating Orb Cardbord 30 Sweden 2C 0F
7 years ago | (0)
Because I have been misunderstood in the past, just to clarify. What I referred to the as the "the dictionary entry", was supposed to be in inverted quotation. When I say I forsee a new entry in the dictionary, I meant a branch. says:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

I am foreseeing a no 3, not that 1 and two would be replaced. cheers
Swiftblade13`s Avatar
Rating Orb Swiftblade13 16 United States CholericSanguine 21C 0F
7 years ago | (4)
Atiesm requires more blind devotion and belief than any other religion and its primary reason for existance is the fact that its devoties really don't want to answer to any higher power cause that might require something more than pure selfishness and lack of restraint.
Pseudolonewolf`s Avatar
Rating Orb A β Pseudolonewolf 23 United Kingdom MelancholicPhlegmatic 2257C 559F
7 years ago | (3)
This is idiotic and potentially trolling, but sigh, I do feel a compulsion to address ignorance on this topic where I can so I'll write a short response...

Atheism requires blind devotion and faith in the same way that *not collecting stamps* requires a lot of time and effort. That is, it doesn't; it is by definition the absence of faith and belief. Atheists may have various beliefs in things other than a god, but they're not necessary to be an atheist.
And no, most atheists are atheists because there's just no evidence to support a belief in the Bible God. Do you refuse to believe in Thor so then you don't have to be punished by Mjolnir's thunderbolts, or because it was just a silly fiction created by ancient people with no basis in reality?

Many atheists in fact are perhaps 'more moral' than Christians because they're good people out of the goodness in their heart, rather than because they're emotionally threatened by Hell or bribed by Heaven. A Christian may do good to please God for what boil down to selfish reasons ("look, God, I am nice, so let me into Heaven, don't send me to Hell!"), whereas an atheist may do good simply to feel happy about it or out of pure altruism. Many people are also good so then others are good to them; if you're nice to someone, they're more likely to be nice to you than if you're horrible to them.
Besides, there are the laws of society that we all must obey even if we're not obeying the arbitrary, ludicrous and outdated laws of some primitive alpha male in the sky, so people, for example, do not kill because it's wrong rather than because God says so.

I for one find it appalling how many Christians I've heard saying that atheists have no morality, and that if they (the Christians) didn't have to obey God, there'd be nothing to stop them raping, killing and stealing. So much for moral superiority.
Weople`s Avatar
Rating Orb Weople 16 United States CholericMelancholic 23C 10F
8 years ago | (1)
For the grappling hook you could make it only usable with certain objects. Like the green and yellow orbs in the Ratchet and Clank series. As for the hover boots they could be used to hover over dangerous areas like swamps and lava. And I was just wondering what would be the sort of thing the shops would actually be used for and by that I mean what would you buy at the shops?
Scorchfrost`s Avatar
Rating Orb Scorchfrost 14 United States MelancholicPhlegmatic 47C 45F
8 years ago | (2)
Uhh, I think you posted this under the wrong news article. You meant to post this on the one about Raider abilities, I think.
Versatelan`s Avatar
Rating Orb Versatelan 17 United States PhlegmaticCholeric 1C 0F
8 years ago | (7)
What I believe to be is Self-Evident about this that he is a pure, emotionally touching man with a great sense of self-portrayed honor and supposed dignity.
thunderdude7`s Avatar
Rating Orb thunderdude7 15 United States MelancholicSanguine 7C 1F
8 years ago | (4)
Under the context of the analogy, yes, all these actions do appear unreasonable. However, in the context of the bible, it makes more sense and is not what you make it out to be.

Firstly, nowhere in the bible does it say how long Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden before they ate the fruit, nor how mature they were, etc. As such, any argument from the possibility that they may have been is illegitimate.

Also, the statement that the butler/serpent was not punished is simply untrue. God curses the serpent, making him walk on his belly - making it clear that the serpent had legs before these events, and this caused the snake to become what it is today.

Also, the punishments in this version are not like those in the bible. God's punishment is forcing Adam and Eve to work for their food - essentially, they are now farmers. Horrible, isn't it?

Also, the bible says nothing on "getting back into the garden". Nor does it ever mention remote signs or anything of the like - all the recorded stories in the bible show signs where God directly speaks to the people the story is about.

Moving on to your segment on Jesus. First off, did you skip the entire rest of the Old Testament? God is a repeating factor in the lives of the Jews, and he did not simply ignore them and let them go wandering about on their own. Some sort of divine intervention is present in every book except Esther.

Onto the story, Jesus was aware of God's plan since long before his arrest, and he had accepted it. Now, it is important to understand that God and Jesus are a single person - an understandable metaphor would be that Jesus is the left half of the body, and God the right. Essentially, God was showing that he would not punish the people who sinned, and he punished himself as a sign of this.

Also, I find it interesting that you choose to completely ignore Jesus' resurrection. While it would mess up the metaphor, it's at least worth acknowledging.

Also, the comment of the writers of the bible being mentally handicapped is completely unprofessional and offensive, not to mention it blurs the point you are attempting to convey.

Lastly, the bit about God's death is simply untrue. As far as you know, God still speaks to people. However, because of today's typically nonreligious society, these comments are rejected. Whose to say if these people were actually spoken to?

I am interested in your responses to these points, and any others you wish to make, and I hope none of my comments offended you in any way.
Page 1 of 10: