On Language

@secondson said
And you'll say anything "all along" the way to try and keep the ball in your court.

My comment about how simple language sometimes, in fact, can do the trick encapsulating ideas about beliefs - the OP topic, lest we forget - put the ball in Philokalia's court, but - as is his prerogative - he has declined to respond.

@philokalia said
I think the "torturer God" analogy could even get us back on the topic to some degree.

That's why I brought it up on page 2.

@philokalia said
It is an example of a large language barrier -- but it is a malicious barrier because it is done by choice and it is done to pervert discussion. In this particular case, it is even done in an attempt to trigger the opposition.

You used the words "egotistical and malicious" in your OP to refer to ideas that some people propagate here.

My perspective was that those words effectively and succinctly encapsulate the torturer God Christian ideology.

Why "egotistical"? Because this is the long and short of the mindmap: 'My thoughts and beliefs will make me immortal'.

Why "malicious"? Because in harness with the immortality idea is the belief that 'People with thoughts and beliefs contrary to mine makes them deserve to be tortured for eternity and this defines the ultimate morality/justice'.

I don't expect you to agree but do you at least understand the point being made and its relevance?

@philokalia said
Atheists and anti-hell types believe in interpreting the strictest, least forgiving concepts of hell, redemption, and the concept of free will, and they ignore the relevant analysis that Christians (or other religious groups) provide to accompany it.

I just tackle what people say here on this forum. Indeed, what seems to bend some people out of shape is NOT that I ignore their analysis and interpretation, but that I refuse to ignore it. You seem to have misread the situation and the people that populate this community.

@fmf said
You used the words "egotistical and malicious" in your OP to refer to ideas that some people propagate here.

My perspective was that those words effectively and succinctly encapsulate the torturer God Christian ideology.

Why "egotistical"? Because this is the long and short of the mindmap: 'My thoughts and beliefs will make me immortal'.

Why "malicious"? Because in ha ...[text shortened]...
I don't expect you to agree but do you at least understand the point being made and its relevance?

Right, I see why you set forward that gross, perverted generalization meant to impugn the intentions of billions of Christians, Muslims, and even Buddhists who all believe in the concept of hell and eternity. Like, I understand why these conclusions were made by you.

But it's a gross and silly dismissal of the beliefs of billions of people and I do not buy it for a second. It is not persuasive or interesting to me.

It's a bad argument.

@fmf said
I just tackle what people say here on this forum. Indeed, what seems to bend some people out of shape is NOT that I ignore their analysis and interpretation, but that I refuse to ignore it. You seem to have misread the situation and the people that populate this community.

You don't tackle anything.

You pervert what people say and attack a small straw man, and you refuse to confront things that are outside of your comfort zone.

Hence why, in this thread, you want to turn it into a debate about hell when it is about language.

How's that for a forum "Main Poster?"

@philokalia said
But it's a gross and silly dismissal of the beliefs of billions of people and I do not buy it for a second. It is not persuasive or interesting to me.

I think it gets to the very heart of what beliefs the torturer god ideology comprises and does so with apt and useful economy. If it's not interesting to you, you shouldn't feel the need to discuss it with me.

@philokalia said
Hence why, in this thread, you want to turn it into a debate about hell when it is about language.

The language I am addressing is the words "egotistical and malicious", which is language you introduced into the discussion with your OP.

@philokalia said
You pervert what people say and attack a small straw man, and you refuse to confront things that are outside of your comfort zone.

I don't think I "pervert" it. I think I take what people say at face value, I assume they are posting in good faith ~ as I do ~ and I tackle the substance of what they say head on.

@philokalia said
Right, I see why you set forward that gross, perverted generalization meant to impugn the intentions of billions of Christians, Muslims, and even Buddhists who all believe in the concept of hell and eternity.

I don't think it is a "perverted generalization" at all. There are Christians here who do not subscribe to torturer god ideology and there are Christians that do. It's just an ideology. Calling a spade a spade without waffling is not a "perverted generalization" to my way of thinking.

@fmf said
My comment about how simple language sometimes, in fact, can do the trick encapsulating ideas about beliefs - the OP topic, lest we forget - put the ball in Philokalia's court, but - as is his prerogative - he has declined to respond.

Simple language? "Torturer god" is as inflammatory as language can get, especially when you couple it with the inference that that is what Christians posting in this forum believe.

You use language in the most disingenuous way you can to incite derision amongst the posters and threads of this forum. You've been doing it for years.

And now you're trying to buffalo me by backpedaling, suggesting that your motive is benign and you're just making comments relative to the OP, that you used "simple language" to "do the trick" of "encapsulating ideas", when in fact you filled this thread with posts that do anything but that.

And just how egotistical can you be by suggesting that your comments "put the ball in Philokalia's court" when the ball never really left it, that is until you and divegeester showed up and started making fouls derailing the discussion with off topic comments.

Philokalia hasn't declined to respond. He just isn't falling for your word games, twisting of intent and out of context inferences.

@fmf said
I don't think it is a "perverted generalization" at all. There are Christians here who do not subscribe to torturer god ideology and there are Christians that do. It's just an ideology. Calling a spade a spade without waffling is not a "perverted generalization" to my way of thinking.

There are no Christians posting in this forum that "subscribe" to the "torturer god ideology".

You're simply using that lie to further your agenda of derailing discussion relative to the truth.

@secondson said
Simple language? "Torturer god" is as inflammatory as language can get, especially when you couple it with the inference that that is what Christians posting in this forum believe.

The term "torturer god ideology" succinctly describes their beliefs. divegeester does not subscribe to "torturer god ideology". Nor does Suzianne. sonship does, for example.

@secondson said
You use language in the most disingenuous way you can to incite derision amongst the posters and threads of this forum.

No you are mistaken. I am quite open and honest and consistent and deliberate and measured about how I use language. I do not use language in a "disingenuous way".

@secondson said
And now you're trying to buffalo me by backpedaling, suggesting that your motive is benign and you're just making comments relative to the OP, that you used "simple language" to "do the trick" of "encapsulating ideas", when in fact you filled this thread with posts that do anything but that.

I think my discussion of how the words "egotistical" and "malicious" might be accurately used is on topic.