25 Dec 18
@secondson saidMy comment was about succinct language. It was not "off topic". The ball is in his court in so far as he can hit it back to me if he wants by addressing what I said. But he doesn't have to.
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.
@secondson saidsonship, KellyJay, whodey, Eladar, Philokalia [as far as I can make out, and judging by his use of succinct language to express his disagreement with me] do, to name a few. There were others in the past, like RJHinds and RBHILL and Grampy Bobby. There are [and have been] others who don't.
There are no Christians posting in this forum that "subscribe" to the "torturer god ideology".
@secondson saidNon-believers are supposedly thrown into a "Lake of Fire", for their lack of faith and belief, where they are made to suffer for eternity, as angry revenge for their "sins" and because they are not "forgiven" for failing to believe they were "forgiven" by Jesus' sacrifice, with the still living Jesus and some angels looking on, and this is "perfect justice" and the "ultimate morality", and everyone should fear God's wrath ~ fear the prospect of everlasting torture ~ in the "Lake of Fire" which does not destroy you or allow you to die ~ and everybody should be a Christian or otherwise be treated as a willing participant in the rebellion of a supernatural figure called "Satan".
"Torturer god" is as inflammatory as language can get
That is, more or less, the torturer god ideology.
@philokalia saidI cannot believe for one second that you seriously believe that disagreement and dissent, even if it is robust or persistent, on a debate and discussion forum can be characterized as being morally unsound.
You could perhaps even argue that seeking to understand someone on their terms and in their language is a very important demonstration of the virtue of charity, and the virtue of wisdom. If this is the case, perhaps you could even say that it is a sin to mischaracterize or excessively attack another's position, particularly when there is a blatant disregard for their views.
So, you are presumably using the term "sin" very deliberately.
Talking about the method and tone of the delivery of ideas and opinions on a message board in terms of them being "sin" or "sinful" ~ i.e. disobeying the laws or wishes of a supernatural being ~ places your concerns outside the realm of atheists/non-believers who - while governed by their moral compasses - do not believe in "sin". As you know.
Does this reference to "sin" mean that your OP is intended as a rebuke to fellow Christians [who do believe in "sin"] for their Christian-on-Christian conflict on this forum?
@fmf saidLOL, right: you just literally come up with the most offensive and vicious language to describe someone's belief in hell, even taking the focus away from hell and putting it on God.
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".
The idea that you think this makes you honest shows that you are incredibly biased and have zero regard for the way that other people describe their own beliefs.
This is bad faith posting.
You are the forum's main bad faith poster.
25 Dec 18
@philokalia saidYes, a double post.
And do note: we have another heated exchange where FMF removes a post.
I wonder what story he will concoct concerning why it was removed?
My guess is "double post."
I do not buy the daddy cool narrative, FMF.
25 Dec 18
@philokalia saidThis exchange is not the slightest bit "heated" from my point of view.
And do note: we have another heated exchange where FMF removes a post.
25 Dec 18
@philokalia saidI disagree. I am posting candidly and in good faith. The words "egotistical" and "malicious" - I took them from your OP - represent appropriate and accurate language.
LOL, right: you just literally come up with the most offensive and vicious language to describe someone's belief in hell, even taking the focus away from hell and putting it on God.
The idea that you think this makes you honest shows that you are incredibly biased and have zero regard for the way that other people describe their own beliefs.
This is bad faith posting.
You are the forum's main bad faith poster.
25 Dec 18
@philokalia saidI pay close attention to how people describe their beliefs. We are all free to describe beliefs as we see fit.
The idea that you think this makes you honest shows that you are incredibly biased and have zero regard for the way that other people describe their own beliefs.
@fmf saidAnd you subscribe to it, and presume to think the posters you named do too.
Non-believers are supposedly thrown into a "Lake of Fire", for their lack of faith and belief, where they are made to suffer for eternity, as angry revenge for their "sins" and because they are not "forgiven" for failing to believe they were "forgiven" by Jesus' sacrifice, with the still living Jesus and some angels looking on, and this is "perfect justice" and the "ultimate mora ...[text shortened]... llion of a supernatural figure called "Satan".
That is, more or less, the torturer god ideology.
There are two reasons why you are in error. The first is that you subscribe to a definition of the character of a God, and things supernatural, you don't believe exists. There's something warped about that kind of logic. It's difficult to understand how one can ascribe a definition to the character of a being one doesn't believe exists. It's irrational.
The second thing is, is that you've fallen for the oldest lie in the book. You are adding to, and taking away from the narrative of the Bible. Firstly you ascribe language into the text that's not there, and secondly you misrepresent the character and nature of God by not attributing to the text the language that clearly describes who God really is.
If you really understood the language of the Bible you wouldn't subscribe to the "torturer god ideology" even if you didn't believe He exists.
Your definition above is a completely hazardous and erroneous misrepresentation of the narrative of scripture. It is without a shred of merit or truth. Yet you will continue to promote it based on a presumptuous line of reasoning that has no basis in the language of the Bible.
In addition, you listed [in a post above] the names of Christian posters in this forum you allege subscribe to the torturer god ideology, and unless I hear from them directly in this thread affirming your assertion I can only assume you are mistaken.
25 Dec 18
@secondson saidI am just tackling people over their ideology. If you don't subscribe to the ideology in question, so be it.
And you subscribe to it, and presume to think the posters you named do too.
There are two reasons why you are in error. The first is that you subscribe to a definition of the character of a God, and things supernatural, you don't believe exists. There's something warped about that kind of logic. It's difficult to understand how one can ascribe a definition to the charact ...[text shortened]... hear from them directly in this thread affirming your assertion I can only assume you are mistaken.
25 Dec 18
@fmf saidThere's nothing to subscribe to. It's an illusion. A false idea or concept that has no basis in reality. A figment of the imagination.
I am just tackling people over their ideology. If you don't subscribe to the ideology in question, so be it.
There is no god that tortures. Anyone that subscribes to that ideology is delusional.
25 Dec 18
@secondson saidIt is what most of the Christians posting in this forum believe.
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.
Deliberately and supernaturally keeping a person alive for eternity in order to make them suffer the agonies of being burnt alive is not a fate I would wish on nor would be justified for the absolute worst human being who had ever lived.
But hey...your crazed version of God does this to the sinners he loved so much that he initially died for them, but subsequently decided he hated them SO much for denying his existence, that he would do this.