Deceiver of the whole world

@kellyjay said
I read the posts that interest me.

Hey - me too!

@kellyjay said
I don't care what FMF's views are on evil, if he is your source for the definition have at it.

You don't have a thoughtful joined-up response to what I am putting to you about "evil" in this discussion. That is why you are saying you "don't care".

Just forgive yourself for the shallow way you tried questioning my protective instincts as a parent and my love for my family as a 'debating point' and stop behaving like a huffy adolescent.

Your inability to address the definition of "evil" that Ghost of a Duke and I subscribe to is part and parcel of your weak performance so far on this, your own thread.

@secondson said
I noticed.

You have taken what the Bible says at its word, and framed your argument accordingly. That's a good idea. At the very least that "experimental idea" allows one to view the argument from more than one perspective.

I would like to take that a step further though. If one could consider all the voices, all the evidence for or against all perspectives, then, and ...[text shortened]... and/or why bother considering alternative views and perspectives if ordered thought wasn't desired?

If there is a truth to be known in scripture that is a threat to all opinions, the truth has to be accepted over opinions. The only way all different views can be relevant, is if everyone can make it up as they go! What does it mean to you, if that is the bottom line, there is no real truth in scripture. As soon as we hit upon the first cause, or truth that is not dependent upon personal views, people can be held accountable.

@kellyjay said
If there is a truth to be known in scripture that is a threat to all opinions, the truth has to be accepted over opinions. The only way all different views can be relevant, is if everyone can make it up as they go! What does it mean to you, if that is the bottom line, there is no real truth in scripture. As soon as we hit upon the first cause, or truth that is not dependent upon personal views, people can be held accountable.

Anybody, from any religion, anywhere in the world, can make assertions about the veracity of their superstitious beliefs and share their subjective personal opinions about "the real truth", just as you are. So, no big deal. But your narcissistic obsession with the supposed universality of the 'answers' you have settled for does seem to render you incapable of even discussing perspectives and definitions that do not coincide with yours. What a pity that is.

@kellyjay said
As soon as we hit upon the first cause, or truth that is not dependent upon personal views, people can be held accountable.

When it comes to immoral acts and "evil", people are held accountable by their families, their communities, their societies, and by the laws laid out their governments. If you - in addition to this - believe you will also be held accountable and punished by a supernatural being, then so be it.

@secondson said
No. That's not what I meant.

I'll try again.

'Thoughts', 'ideas', 'concepts', in our minds, are ordered according to what they are predicated on.

Ordered, as in each thought follows sequentially according to a precept first conceived.

For example: (let's jump to the big one) Truth. When the thought, idea, concept "truth" first comes to mind, what then might be ...[text shortened]... ble sequential thought progression that might follow to arrive at an understanding of what truth is?

Truth is something we arrive at through empirical study.

@kellyjay said
I read the posts that interest me.

And it is such a sporadic approach that often has you miss things being discussed.

As an aside, how do you know a post will interest you, before reading it? Surely you first have to read a post to decide whether or not it is of interest?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
And it is such a sporadic approach that often has you miss things being discussed.

As an aside, how do you know a post will interest you, before reading it? Surely you first have to read a post to decide whether or not it is of interest?

For most, with some the name alone is all I need to see. I'm done responding to or reading those who take things said, change the meaning and context into something not meant or said, and then go after you for their version. Even after they get corrected they refuse to acknowledge error instead just repeat their views. Name calling can happen, sharp disagreements can occur, out and out dislike of people can occur, but the other there is no reason to continue talking to someone who changes your words into something else and attack you for it.

@kellyjay said
For most, with some the name alone is all I need to see. I'm done responding to or reading those who take things said, change the meaning and context into something not meant or said, and then go after you for their version. Even after they get corrected they refuse to acknowledge error instead just repeat their views. Name calling can happen, sharp disagreements can occur, ...[text shortened]... son to continue talking to someone who changes your words into something else and attack you for it.

Mine is a name that you might want to avoid reading, although I don't believe I've ever changed the meaning or context of anything you have said.
Thing is, I might want to talk about what a load of self - righteous nonsense you write, or how your denial of science puts your thoughts and opinions somewhere back in the dark ages, or I might want to discuss toast, and you won't know that until you've read the whole post.

And the answer is....Toast.

@indonesia-phil said
Mine is a name that you might want to avoid reading, although I don't believe I've ever changed the meaning or context of anything you have said.
Thing is, I might want to talk about what a load of self - righteous nonsense you write, or how your denial of science puts your thoughts and opinions somewhere back in the dark ages, or I might want to discuss toast, and you won't know that until you've read the whole post.

And the answer is....Toast.

I can avoid anyone upon request, ask it will be done.

@kellyjay said
For most, with some the name alone is all I need to see. I'm done responding to or reading those who take things said, change the meaning and context into something not meant or said, and then go after you for their version.

"Change the meaning"? Name names. After you tried to leverage my family in a discussion about the supposed morality of supernatural torture, you lied repeatedly, insisting that you hadn't mentioned my family. Bear in mind that I have never made any comments about your family in an effort to land some kind of cheap blow in a debate.

@kellyjay said
here is no reason to continue talking to someone who changes your words into something else and attack you for it.

Your inability to deal with ideas, observations and questions in debates here is part of the discourse. Your inability to deal with what goes on in discussions because of your huffy pride basically defines your online persona here.

@kellyjay said
For most, with some the name alone is all I need to see. I'm done responding to or reading those who take things said, change the meaning and context into something not meant or said, and then go after you for their version. Even after they get corrected they refuse to acknowledge error instead just repeat their views. Name calling can happen, sharp disagreements can occur, ...[text shortened]... son to continue talking to someone who changes your words into something else and attack you for it.

I respect your stance. It is logical and your right to not respond to those whose tactics are to misrepresent and mischaracterize your intent for the purpose of derailing coherent discourse.

@kellyjay said
there is no reason to continue talking to someone who changes your words into something else and attack you for it.

Who "changes your words into something else"? What on earth are you going on about?

@secondson said
I respect your stance. It is logical and your right to not respond to those whose tactics are to misrepresent and mischaracterize your intent for the purpose of derailing coherent discourse.

KellyJay's inability/unwillingness to respond to on-topic posts is an integral part of any discourse he is involved in. Conversations with him are strewn unanswered responses and questions on his part. People can make what they want of this inability to engage.