A question of honesty

Originally posted by DeepThought
Is duckspeak a reference to 1984? Orwell refers to people speaking newspeak as quacking.

For me the word duckspeak, coined by Orwell, depicts regurgitating dogmatic word strings and quotations instead of engaging in a genuine or sincere way. When pressed to account for what they profess to believe or how they behave, religionists often resort to it, in my view.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I read this reply yesterday and didn't see how it had answered the question, but after reflection I think that its about as coherent an answer to the question as is possible.

There was a science fiction author called Iain M. Banks who wrote a bunch of novels set within a space faring civilization called the Culture. In them he had a sort of technolog ...[text shortened]... ering the irreal the concerns of this universe, including anyone left behind, stopped mattering.

It's funny you should say that, because it seemed to me I was only answering one persons question. It didn't answer anything else as far as I could see. And all I could really say about it (how does God do that) was "I don't know". LOL

I get what you're saying (if this was your point) about how my perception of an afterlife sounds curiously like science fiction/fantasy. It struck me that way as well.

There was a sci/fi novel entitled Childhoods End (Author C Clark?) where humanity had reached a point in their development where some big evolutionary change was about to take place, and alien spaceships arrived to help humanity with this. The aliens looked like Mr Spock (the author said they all looked like Satan) and their own evolutionary advancement had become fixed. They were logical in their thinking and understood empirical science, but humanity was apparently on the edge of becoming something entirely different... a higher plane of existence and understanding, beyond what the technologically advanced aliens were now capable of.

It went on to describe humanity in general and how they had lost all interest in normal activities. All of the children were whisked up into some higher dimensional reality while the adults were left on earth to live out their lives. Humanity would die out and become extinct because the purpose of their lives had been accomplished, and nothing else interested them except to entertain themselves until they died... they even lost interest in doing what it takes to have and raise kids. 😲

I couldn't help noticing how it somewhat paralleled last day prophesy, except for the part where the aliens all looked like Satan... I thought that was a bit too obvious. It looked like an attempt to see the Devil in a new and more sympathetic light. I wasn't a Christian at the time, but it still seemed a bit cheesy and an obvious slap in the face at people who have no sympathy for the devil.

Originally posted by lemon lime
And all I could really say about it (how does God do that) was "I don't know". LOL. I get what you're saying (if this was your point) about how my perception of an afterlife sounds curiously like science fiction/fantasy. It struck me that way as well.

This is why I think you sell yourself short when you dismiss people who perceive reality differently from you as "goofs who think reality will bend to their will and become whatever they wish it to be."

Originally posted by lemon lime
It's funny you should say that, because it seemed to me I was only answering one persons question. It didn't answer anything else as far as I could see. And all I could really say about it (how does God do that) was "I don't know". LOL

I get what you're saying (if this was your point) about how my perception of an afterlife sounds curious ...[text shortened]... eemed a bit cheesy and an obvious slap in the face at people who have no sympathy for the devil.

I just checked, and it was Arthur C. Clarke who wrote Childhoods End.

Originally posted by Suzianne
You've put on your spiritual armor to do battle with a concept I feel is just another windmill.

My position is similar to yours and yet I find that there are far more spiritual matters to get worked up about than just this.

I don't "lack the courage to speak out". I get shouted down regularly by people who think my ideas are too fanciful to entertain ...[text shortened]... yday thinking people away from our religion with their ancient, literalist ideas about creation.

When a Christian tells another Christian in a public forum that they "deserve to be cast into the eternal hell" for simply not believing in that eternal hell, I feel it needs to be spoken out against unilaterally, not for the sake of the accused Christian but for the sale of the integrity of the gospel.

Bessie's that, the doctrine of eternal suffering itself is a disgusting sleight on thecbpnature of our god, is completely abhorrent and repellent to anyone with an enquiring mind on the gospel and morally reprehensible to anyone with smidgen of reflective effort. I'm not sure what other issues you feel you want stand up for in this forum, but for me this is certainly one that I will argue against tirelessly.

Originally posted by FMF
He's offering you insincere and sanctimonious duckspeak because he doesn't have any genuine insights or fellowship to offer.

There are a number of posters in this forum who feel it is acceptable, perhaps even cleaver, to avoid answering direct questions when under scrutiny. Observing the sycophantic 'stroking' that accompanies this behaviour is cringe-worthy but expected. I think there is a lack of awareness of what "unity" means when it comes to Christian brotherhood; to me it certainly doesn't mean closing ranks with whoever is most superficially aligned to your in-play position.

Originally posted by divegeester
There are a number of posters in this forum who feel it is acceptable, perhaps even cleaver, to avoid answering direct questions when under scrutiny. Observing the sycophantic 'stroking' that accompanies this behaviour is cringe-worthy but expected. I think there is a lack of awareness of what "unity" means when it comes to Christian brotherhood; to me ...[text shortened]... doesn't mean closing ranks with whoever is most superficially aligned to your in-play position.

divegeester, here's the objective reality: The place named the Lake of Fire in the Great White Throne Judgment Passage

"11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." Revelation 20:11-15

is real or it isn't real. If it's real, accept or reject it. If it isn't real, your salvation and mine and of all other believers in Christ since time began are in jeopardy: if it is not real God's Veracity is flawed; He is not Immutable; His Word has no authority.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
...If it's real, accept or reject it. If it isn't real, your salvation and mine and of all other believers in Christ since time began are in jeopardy: if it is not real God's Veracity is flawed; He is not Immutable; His Word has no authority.[/i]

The fact that things are destroyed by fire and cease to exist is an "immutable" fact, surely? If so, your extraordinary extrapolations and assertions about torture by fire for eternity do not have much in the way of "authority", do they?

Originally posted by divegeester
There are a number of posters in this forum who feel it is acceptable, perhaps even cleaver, to avoid answering direct questions when under scrutiny.

Grampy Bobby said to you: "If it's real, accept or reject it. If it isn't real, your salvation and mine and of all other believers in Christ since time began are in jeopardy: if it is not real God's Veracity is flawed; He is not Immutable; His Word has no authority."

So if you disagree with Grampy Bobby's personal interpretation, or if Grampy Bobby is wrong, then "God's Word has no authority" and the salvation of all Christians is "in jeopardy".

The stakes are high in Christendom, it seems. It comes down to Grampy Bobby's personal interpretation and your willingness to simply accept it!

😉

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
divegeester, here's the objective reality: The place named the Lake of Fire in the Great White Throne Judgment Passage[quote]"11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and b ...[text shortened]... if it is not real God's Veracity is flawed; He is not Immutable; His Word has no authority.[/i]

I have explained many many time across countless threads on this topic that I do not contest that there is a second death. I am completely bewildered by your ongoing inability to comprehend this.

Originally posted by FMF
Grampy Bobby said to you: [b]"If it's real, accept or reject it. If it isn't real, your salvation and mine and of all other believers in Christ since time began are in jeopardy: if it is not real God's Veracity is flawed; He is not Immutable; His Word has no authority."

So if you disagree with Grampy Bobby's personal interpretation, or if Grampy Bobby is down to Grampy Bobby's personal interpretation and your willingness to simply accept it! [/b]

The concept "I could be wrong" does not seem come into play much with some Christians here.

Originally posted by divegeester
The concept "I could be wrong" does not seem come into play much with some Christians here.

One of them recently boasted that he'd rather die than make/admit to making a mistake about Biblical interpretation. With a hairy Christian chest being beaten with self-anointed fists in this way, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for "I could be wrong" to come into play.

Originally posted by FMF
One of them recently boasted that he'd rather die than make/admit to making a mistake about Biblical interpretation. With a hairy Christian chest being beaten with self-anointed fists in this way, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for "I could be wrong" to come into play.

Other ways to avoid being potentially wrong include:

- subtly change the subject, aka deflection. Needs to be skilfully done to work but is effective when offered in a combo with other tactics listed here. Can make one appear a bit dim if overplayed.

- avoid the subject and hope no one notices; pretending you have other pressing matters in the real world that prevent you from replying to a particular post and subtly renter the fray further downstream in calmer water.

- claim you don't understand; creating a pretence that your corespondent is being incoherent and that you feel the need to keep asking for clarification via lots of pointless questions until your corespondent weary of you or die.

- claim you have already answered the question; a form of deflection where one directs the correspondent to search for your answer across a number of threads and countless posts with no clue provided as to where this answer is.

- post a massive amount of content to hide that you haven't actually addressed your correspondents point. Most effective when used across multiple posts pre-prepared in a word doc and dumped all at once into the forum. Additional enhancements include multiple uses of [quote],[b],[i] preferably within the same lines of text.

- take offence at the poster, a sort of soft ad hominem approach where one attacks the motives of your corespondent rather than the content of their posts. This can be an effective twist on the deflection tactic. However repeated using the same accusation to avoid all and any responses can make one look like a weedy coward.

- leave the site in disgust. Aka "the flounce off" A fail-safe way of never having to deal with reality is to simply walk away from it. Requires a determined resolve and the understanding that one will look like a bit of a prick if one returns, especially if flounce off is used multiple times.

- accuse your corespondent of being dim e.g. "You just don't get it do you?". "It" being their premise which is suddenly in danger of a "pants-down" on the internet situation; another form of deflection

Originally posted by lemon lime
It's funny you should say that, because it seemed to me I was only answering one persons question. It didn't answer anything else as far as I could see. And all I could really say about it (how does God do that) was "I don't know". LOL

I get what you're saying (if this was your point) about how my perception of an afterlife sounds curious ...[text shortened]... eemed a bit cheesy and an obvious slap in the face at people who have no sympathy for the devil.

I think it was the same question, I was hanging on divegeester and bbarr's coattails. Science fiction is the genre that most allows these ideas to be explored, concepts like "realer than real" don't easily fit into a romantic comedy. The reason I mentioned the Iain M Banks version of heaven is that it has the "leaving behind" component. It's a device to confirm that what I understood by your statement corresponds with your conception.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I think it was the same question, I was hanging on divegeester and bbarr's coattails. Science fiction is the genre that most allows these ideas to be explored, concepts like "realer than real" don't easily fit into a romantic comedy. The reason I mentioned the Iain M Banks version of heaven is that it has the "leaving behind" component. It's a device to confirm that what I understood by your statement corresponds with your conception.

What I was trying to convey by "waking up from a dream" was that your memory of life here would naturally fade, and the reality of where you now find yourself would take over. This is one reason (not the only reason) why I believe you wouldn't be clinging to past regrets, or feel anguish over someone who doesn't inhabit the reality you are now fully cognizant of.

When is a dream is over, whatever you experienced in that dream loses its importance because it no longer feels 'real' to you. Or at least not as real as where you find yourself after waking up. As I said before, it would require a radical shift in how we understand what it means to wake up from a dream, because we have become accustomed to what dreams are and what it means to wake up from them.

There was something else I wanted to say to you about the difference between Science and 'Natural' Science, but it belongs on one of these other threads. I slept in today and have only been up and awake for about 20 minutes, so it will take awhile before I get around to that topic... I'm still waiting for this particular 'waking' reality to come into full focus.