16 Sep 19
@ghost-of-a-duke saidWhat if love demands Hell?
I have clearly stated that the concepts of love and eternal punishment are not compatible.
16 Sep 19
@divegeester saidIs that what you think the verses in question are saying?
I see that once again you have very quickly devolved into throwing insults as soon as you find yourself in a pinch.
Is Jesus literally in hell overseeing the eternal burning alive of non Christians or not?
Yes or No secondson
You're the one that said it dumbo. You're the one saying that Jesus is "in hell overseeing".
No one else said that. The scriptures don't say that. Only an idiot would say that.
You're a disingenuous and intellectually dishonest boob.
16 Sep 19
@divegeester saidIt specifies it as a punishment for those who worship the beast, correct?
This is the second verse in succession that you are claiming you don’t know if it means what it says at face value, and yet strangely you are completely sure that people will be being burnt alive for eternity.
Why would you conclude that it is broader automatically?
...
How do you interpret the references in hell to the gospel? Is it the case that I can't be absolutely certain of the interpretation of a couple passages that you stretch the meaning of, but you can dismiss those passages and others as simile with no extra analysis?
16 Sep 19
@fmf saidA lot of insults directed at me, which is fine.
I don't reject the idea of a creator being. I find the God figure you describe non-credible and the ideology attached to it morally non-sensical. I don't think you offer any information about a creator being, if there is one.
What you do seem to be offering instead is a noxious blend of narcissism and misanthropy, which pretty much maxes out when you make the ludicrous assert ...[text shortened]... choose to torture themselves'. It is beyond parody. Delivered with comic timing: it is a laugh line.
But you acknowledge that you are in full control of your decisions, and you are an independent agent, and you reject the Gospels, correct?
Wheres the problem? What more needs to be said? You've made a choice, why shouldn't you be responsible for it?
Why is this suddenly about your perception that I make bad arguments?
16 Sep 19
@secondson saidSo, just to be clear: Does "the Lamb" not refer to Jesus? Yes or no?
For someone with "considerably more intelligence" you appear not up to the challenge of following who said what to who.
16 Sep 19
@philokalia saidA choice to do what? I cannot choose to believe your speculations. I either realize I have the same superstitious outlook or I don't. Do you think I am also choosing to be a follower of "Satan" simply because you imagine "Satan" exists?
You've made a choice, why shouldn't you be responsible for it?
17 Sep 19
@philokalia saidYou want me to perceive that your "arguments" as being "absolute truths" about reality inspired by a divine being don't you? Whose perception am I supposed to use to process your ideology if not mine?
Why is this suddenly about your perception that I make bad arguments?
17 Sep 19
@philokalia saidI am using the terms narcissism and misanthropy correctly.
A lot of insults directed at me, which is fine.
17 Sep 19
@philokalia saidI certainly do not believe I am rejecting "God" or "Gods". It's only your subjective and unconvincing claim that you are talking about one. A creator being surely would not have communicated with you and, in so doing, equipped you with such moral nonsense and circular logic. You and I are not talking about "God". We are talking about your torturer ideology and its implications for you as a commentator on moral matters.
But you acknowledge that you are in full control of your decisions, and you are an independent agent, and you reject the Gospels, correct?
17 Sep 19
OK, FMF, it is perhaps true that I do not provide the best arguments here. It is certainly true that the best arguments for God and Christianity and the Gospels are all off of this website. I bet you could even do a splendid job of finding the names of the top writers and theologians that support the Christian worldview yourself, and probably already have.
My point is never that I am a good debater, or that I am the author of some right truth or theology here that people need to believe. Forget all about the user Philokalia -- and pick up the Philokalia if you like (though this isn't really apologetics, just bear with my juxtaposition).
Whether or not you were convinced by my arguments or KellyJay's or Sonship or Secondson or whomever's arguments is utterly irrelevant.
My point is: you have a functioning mind, and you once were close to God, and now you have rejected the Gospels. This is completely your choice as an adult, and it is completely done independently, right?
17 Sep 19
@philokalia saidIt's the only thing that's relevant on a debate and discussion forum like this.
Whether or not you were convinced by my arguments or KellyJay's or Sonship or Secondson or whomever's arguments is utterly irrelevant.
17 Sep 19
@philokalia saidYou are still actually talking about me "choosing" to believe what you believe or else face demented violence? This is your "appeal to reason"?
My point is: you have a functioning mind, and you once were close to God, and now you have rejected the Gospels. This is completely your choice as an adult, and it is completely done independently, right?
Whatever I may have felt or believed I was in the past, I wasn't "close to God". And I don't have any reason to believe you are, either.
If the "Gospels" push your meaning-of-life buttons, good for you.
But the stuff about me being a "follower" of some supernatural "Satan" character that appeals to your imagination or about me choosing to torture myself for realizing that I should have joined the Greek Orthodox Church [or one of the other 39,999 denominations of your religion] while I was alive cannot be described as "an appeal to reason".