• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Forced Love

C

Chattiestspike2

New Member
arg-fallbackName="Chattiestspike2"/>
Suppose I were to tell you:

I will torture your children. I will make them suffer in agony, right in front of you. BUT if you give me 1000 dollars, I won't harm them at all.


You would in a way feel "forced" to give me 1000 dollars, right? I mean.. you could choose not to, but your children would be tortured. How about if I told you

I will send your children to a house where people with power tools will torture your children and I will make you watch. BUT if you give me 1000 dollars, I will arrange for them NOT to be tortured. Make your choice

It is sort of beginning to seem like a SAW movie. You are still forced to give me 1000 dollars even though I personally wouldn't be harming your children. In fact, it would sort of be your fault if they got tortured because you would have chosen not to pay. So.. is this not forcing you to pay 1000 dollars? How about if I raised the stakes and said

I will send your children to a house where people with power tools will slowly oh ever so slowly kill your children in front of you. BUT if you give me 1000 dollars and do what I say for the next month, I will arrange for them NOT to be slowly killed. The choice is yours

YOu love your children dearly. Any good parent does. So you would naturally do anything in your power to keep them safe. But are you not being FORCED to pay 1000 dollars and obey for a month in order to keep your children safe? Like I said, it's your choice. You can choose not too. But your children will suffer in agony untill they die slowly. Would you look at it as a good thing? It's a good thing what I'm doing. There is nothing wrong with my request.

What if I raised the stakes infinitely high.

I will send you to a place where you will suffer in agony and be tortured. That place has people with every intention of killing you oh so slowly. So slowly as to back off right when you are about to die to let you recover for a bit, then continue with the torturing. You will get very little food, very little water, just enough to keep you concious and just enough to make you feel the pain. And when you finally DO die, I will make sure that your immortal soul will continue to feel the same pain you felt before you died. Only this time, you won't be able to escape through death. So the pain and suffering will last forever. BUT I will arrange for this NOT to happen if you pay me 1000 dollars, do what I say all the tiem, and love me unconditionally. The choice is yours





Is that a good deal or what? How great of a deal is that to be able to have the CHOICE.. the FREE WILL.. to be able to make a decision like that freely by yourself. Isn't that great. No one is forcing you. No one is MAKING you do it. It's all up to you :)
 
arg-fallbackName="TheDarwinman"/>
The "FREE" alluded to within the orthodox Christian doctrine of "freewill" is perhaps the greatest sophistry ever perpetrated.

This Emperor is wearing no clothes.
 
arg-fallbackName="Chattiestspike2"/>
TheDarwinman said:
The "FREE" alluded to within the orthodox Christian doctrine of "freewill" is perhaps the greatest sophistry ever perpetrated.

This Emperor is wearing no clothes.
Click to expand...

Free will.. yet everything we have done, are doing, and will do is already planned out, mapped out, and arranged on god's "divine plan." Right..
 
arg-fallbackName="nemesiss"/>
here is my answer, i ignore your offer and beat the shit out of you and then hand you over to the police.
 
arg-fallbackName="e2iPi"/>
Got to agree with nemesiss there. I'm going to go all Bruce Willis on somebody or several somebodies :lol:

-1
 
arg-fallbackName="borrofburi"/>
I think you all are missing a more interesting question here: where does the line of responsibility lie? Obviously if I say I'll kill your children unless you give me money, I am "forcing" you to pay me; obviously if I happen to accidentally find out that terrorists will kill your children but think that if you give me $1000 I can bribe them to not, I am just trying to help out. Where does that line of responsibility end? What if I'm a private detective, who happened to find out your children will be killed by terrorists, but my standard detective fee (hey I've got to eat, and pay for all those bullets and stuff) is $1000?
 
arg-fallbackName="e2iPi"/>
borrofburi said:
I think you all are missing a more interesting question here: where does the line of responsibility lie? Obviously if I say I'll kill your children unless you give me money, I am "forcing" you to pay me; obviously if I happen to accidentally find out that terrorists will kill your children but think that if you give me $1000 I can bribe them to not, I am just trying to help out. Where does that line of responsibility end? What if I'm a private detective, who happened to find out your children will be killed by terrorists, but my standard detective fee (hey I've got to eat, and pay for all those bullets and stuff) is $1000?
Click to expand...
In the first, it is obviously with you. The second can be seen as an legitimate attempt to help, and the responsibility lies with the terrorists.

It is the final scenario which is the most interesting. There are many variables to consider. If your standard fee is $1000 for rescuing my children, that's your occupation--you deserve to be paid, and I would happily pay that much and more for the rescue of my children. But what if I didn't have the money but did posses the requisite skills to go get them myself (say a former SEAL or SAS) but I don't know where they are, but you do (again, this is assuming that you discovered the plot independently then contacted me). Are you willing to to tell me where they are being held? If not, you share in the responsibility (and accept responsibility for the subsequent "questioning" as to their location.)

-1
 
arg-fallbackName="JustBusiness17"/>
borrofburi said:
I think you all are missing a more interesting question here: where does the line of responsibility lie? Obviously if I say I'll kill your children unless you give me money, I am "forcing" you to pay me; obviously if I happen to accidentally find out that terrorists will kill your children but think that if you give me $1000 I can bribe them to not, I am just trying to help out. Where does that line of responsibility end? What if I'm a private detective, who happened to find out your children will be killed by terrorists, but my standard detective fee (hey I've got to eat, and pay for all those bullets and stuff) is $1000?
Click to expand...

This whole thing may be an interesting topic, but not to me. The metaphor was clearly created to enlighten ignorant Christians about their "loving god". Even if there are gray aspects to this argument, I could care less because I don't believe in the Christian god one iota. Perhaps if my conclusions about the Christian faith rested on this one argument, I would look at it more carefully. Fortunately for me, this is probably one of the least compelling reasons for not believing in the Christian faith which means levels of gray in this argument are inconsequential.

Sorry if I'm being an asshole.
 
arg-fallbackName=")O( Hytegia )O("/>
I've always thought of this-

Frankly, I'm glad that this is why people aren't always so money-centered and willing to help others in spacific times of crisis. xD
If you didn't have the money, I would do it for free.

*Much like Doctors HAVE to save you, no matter what your income. It's not only good for the sake of humanity, but for the sake of common courtesy to another of our species!

-_-
I'd atleast work out a payment plan later on and the like.
 
arg-fallbackName="TheAnMish"/>
This is God's way of forcing us to fear/love him. And this is one of the things that made me loose my faith.
"If God loves me.. why did he create the devil and hell, and why would he even think about sending me there? If he loves me?"

It's kinda like an angry parent, only working with infinite time, and an ability to bear a grudge for all eternity.
"You didn't do your chores so I'm gonna punish you for it. No phone for a month!" vs "You didn't love me so I'm gonna torture you for eternity!"

I never understood this reasoning, and hopefully, I never will.
 
arg-fallbackName="Chattiestspike2"/>
TheAnMish said:
This is God's way of forcing us to fear/love him. And this is one of the things that made me loose my faith.
"If God loves me.. why did he create the devil and hell, and why would he even think about sending me there? If he loves me?"

It's kinda like an angry parent, only working with infinite time, and an ability to bear a grudge for all eternity.
"You didn't do your chores so I'm gonna punish you for it. No phone for a month!" vs "You didn't love me so I'm gonna torture you for eternity!"

I never understood this reasoning, and hopefully, I never will.
Click to expand...

I have heard so many excuses for the hell idea. Ones that include "well if you didn't want to be apart of the club in life, why would he want you in the club after you die," "by god's nature, sin cannot be in the presence of god, so if you are sinful, you cannot be with god," "what choice does god have if you have lived a sinful life?" That last one is my favorite. What choice does god have? Well shit, how about INFINITE choices! After all, he is god.

And I love how some people say that hell is just being away from god and other people emphasize the torture and suffering part. It's like "well you lived a sinful life and by god's nature (bs) you cannot be in the presence of god" .. therefore you must burn for eternity?

You are right. It doesn't make sense. And I hear a lot "well you just don't understand it".. wtf is there to understand?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top