Originally posted by divegeesterFor the same reason I do not spend time arguing with people at church.
Hey Suzianne, instead of sitting at home thumbing down all my posts why don't you stand up for what you believe in I.e. Not eternal suffering, and get involved? Is it because you don't want to break ranks with sonship?
Principles stinging much?
Being a bitch (of either gender) doesn't exactly honor God. When people who believe in my religion agree with 99% of the theology, why in the world, instead of celebrating our lives in Christ with them, would I spend all my time unpleasantly fighting with them about that 1%, which really isn't a matter worth arguing about? I daresay that if more people listened to sonship over that 99%, instead of focusing on a trivial 1%, there wouldn't be anywhere near all this "wailing and gnashing of teeth" on this forum.
But then, some people just like to fight. Barbarians, all of them. You, included.
Originally posted by FMFAnd so, as a matter of fact, what you're telling him, i.e. your opinion, is just that, opinion, and that "what you imagine and claim to be true" is without basis or fact, either without use or unfocused.
I do not have to somehow trump whatever you have in your imagination with some alternative supernatural fantasy in order to tell you that I find a lot of what you imagine and claim to be true to be either useless or incoherent.
Thanks, Captain Obvious.
05 Jul 15
Originally posted by SuzianneIt's sonship's opinion that what he has claimed about his torturer God figure has moral coherence when, in fact, he hasn't. You yourself don't think the torturer God ideology and the notion of "eternal torture" has moral coherence either, right?
And so, as a matter of fact, what you're telling him, i.e. your opinion, is just that, opinion, and that "what you imagine and claim to be true" is without basis or fact, either without use or unfocused.
Thanks, Captain Obvious.
Originally posted by SuzianneYou think the notion of billions and billions of non-believers being tortured for eternity as a supposed testament to your God figure's "glory" and as an instance of His "perfect justice" is "trivial" and only "1%" of Christian theology?
When people who believe in my religion agree with 99% of the theology, why in the world, instead of celebrating our lives in Christ with them, would I spend all my time unpleasantly fighting with them about that 1%, which really isn't a matter worth arguing about?
05 Jul 15
Originally posted by FMFWhat I think is that you using "moral coherence" as some kind of maypole to dance around is completely and totally ironic.
It's sonship's opinion that what he has claimed about his torturer God figure has moral coherence when, in fact, he hasn't. You yourself don't think the torturer God ideology and the notion of "eternal torture" has moral coherence either, right?
05 Jul 15
Originally posted by FMFHow is this even a question? Didn't I just say as much?
You think the notion of billions and billions of non-believers being tortured for eternity as a supposed testament to your God figure's "glory" and as an instance of His "perfect justice" is "trivial" and only "1%" of Christian theology?
Yes. Yes, I do. Now will I have to repeat this endlessly for you and your pals or are you clear on this yet?
Although I would prefer to eliminate the "as a supposed testament to your God figure's "glory" and as an instance of His "perfect justice" " part, though, as this is clearly *your* bias getting in your own way of your "quest" for coherency.
05 Jul 15
Originally posted by SuzianneIs that a 'NO', you don't think the torturer God ideology [and the notion of "eternal torture"] has moral coherence either, nor 'YES' you do?
What I think is that you using "moral coherence" as some kind of maypole to dance around is completely and totally ironic.
05 Jul 15
Originally posted by SuzianneThese are claims sonship that has made repeatedly.
Although I would prefer to eliminate the "as a supposed testament to your God figure's "glory" and as an instance of His "perfect justice" " part, though, as this is clearly *your* bias getting in your own way of your "quest" for coherency.
Originally posted by SuzianneBillions of non-believers being tortured for eternity as a punishment for their non-belief is a trivial matter? Do you sincerely believe this, as a Christian, or are you simply choosing to disagree with me regardless of your actual beliefs and principles?
How is this even a question? Didn't I just say as much?
05 Jul 15
2 edits
Originally posted by sonshipHi sonship,
Before I say something that you know, or spend my time defending something which is not really a key issue, would you please just react to my previous assertion that it is not only useless and unproductive, but also irritating, to use any document to defend your PoV which is not accepted as authoritative by the party that you are disputing with?
Many here, including FMF, twhitehead and sonhouse have repeatedly stated that they do NOT accept the authority of the Bible. My simple question to you would be: then why do you keep quoting it? What is your objective?
(It should go without saying that there certainly is merit in discussing the Bible amongst people who DO accept its value, but who may disagree on points of difference, as you and I have in fact done. But don't quote the Bible to atheists to make your case.)
Do you agree with this one point?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
05 Jul 15
5 edits
Originally posted by CalJustThis specific thread was a continuation of divegeesters request to want to know how certain Christians think, particularly about the matter of certain passages from Revelation 14. I think with the Word of God. So I used the Word of God.
What you request, I have done some of on other subjects.
I want you to know that I am not unfamiliar with the concept. In the 70s Francis Schaeffer talked much about "Pre-evangelism". And Denish D'souza also talks about Christians learning to speak another language (free from bible references). Some presuppositional apologists would debate without reference to the Bible. So I understand what you mean.
This thread continued responses mostly questions to me on the Hell Spectator thread. And since the origin of that was HOW do Christian's think, I reply as I think - in relation to the Scripture.
I don't think about convincing FMF, twhitehead and sonhouse anymore of anything, reasoning with or without the Bible. And my replies were mainly to allow divegeester to see how a Christian like myself might think about the matters.
But I may be finished on this thread. I have been doing some more reading for my own further study.
Bottom line - I know full well what you mean. But it is not a mandatory prerequisite for me. Third time then - I could - not use the Scripture, I choose - to use Scripture right now.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
05 Jul 15
Originally posted by CalJustIf you want to converse with Robbie again just call him an oily fish. He seems to respond well to that.
Fair enough. I can accept that that is a matter of personal choice and strategy.
I once challenged RC to talk without quoting the Bible, and he said basically the same thing as you just did. That was, if I recall correctly, our last conversation.