The Good Father

@philokalia said
Like, we could argue that Marxism is morally coherent, even if you disagree with the particularities of the morality, or that Libertarianism is morally coherent, with the same caveats...

Neither of those two ideologies proposes that "torturing people in burning flames for eternity" is morally coherent BECAUSE IT JUST IS.

@fmf said
And what would be the moral justification for your God figure to torture me for lacking belief while I was alive?

And what would be the moral justification for your God carrying it out in secret?

You will want to refer back to this post:

First, it is not torture; it is the result of your own actions, and thus not torture.

Second, by living in a state of unrepentance for your sins, and rejecting your creator, you have chosen to not accept eternal life with God. Because all of our sins darken our minds and incline us towards wrong withotu repentance, separating us further from God, we cannot actually go to Heaven and to be saved.

But the soul is immortal, and so, on Judgment Day, those who have repented and loved God will be taken to heaven, and those who haven't will have exiled themselves.

What is wrong with the consequence of
- People who do not want to be with God not being with God
- People who do not repent of their sinful nature living in this fallen state, with the consequences thereof?

(2) What do you mean by 'secret?'

@fmf said
You're trying to dj2becker me.

No, I just don't think I said 'torture.'

@fmf said
All you seem to be saying is that NON-BELIEVERS WILL BE TORTURED AND IT IS MORALLY COHERENT THAT THIS IS SO.

It is ironic that you post this after writing

I think your ludicrous 'atheists torture themselves' thing is a kind of mish-mash of sophistry, obfuscation, and intellectual masturbation.

and essentially not engaging in what I am saying at any length and just repeating yourself.

@philokalia said
LOL, how would it be irrelevant who is subjected to hell? How would it be irrelevant what the standard for punishment is?

Because some wishy-washy fudging hazy waving of the rhetorical hand at some undefined exceptions - non-believers who maybe, dunno, perhaps, who knows, might NOT be tortured - does not render the violent ideology you propagate coherent in its entirety.

@fmf said
Neither of those two ideologies proposes that "torturing people in burning flames for eternity" is morally coherent BECAUSE IT JUST IS.

The most yuo have done to say that it is morally incoherent is say

"It's not going to happen"

and ask questions about it...

Honestly, my hands are getting tired.

I am going to step away.

If Dive or Kevin can have a debate that isn't circular and repetitous, please, take over.

Try to advance the position.

@fmf said
Because some wishy-washy fudging hazy waving of the rhetorical hand at some undefined exceptions - non-believers who maybe, dunno, perhaps, who knows, might NOT be tortured - does not render the violent ideology you propagate coherent in its entirety.

OK, you will want to try to deal with this, then:

What is wrong with the consequence of
- People who do not want to be with God not being with God
- People who do not repent of their sinful nature living in this fallen state, with the consequences thereof?

@philokalia said
And we just have to take your word for it that you are "quoting me verbatim"from 18 months ago...With an exact phrase.

Yes. It's easy to remember. Only six words. And the issue comes up all the time. I put it in posts addressed to sonship quite frequently.

@philokalia said
But no links, no proof, or anything, just a phrase you've kept memorized for the day taht this would come up 18 months later.

I have probably typed those six words, in quotation marks, several times a week for the last 18 months, very often in posts addressed to you. You seem to be trying to play the man and not the ball, again.

@fmf said
Yes. It's easy to remember. Only six words. And the issue comes up all the time. I put it in posts addressed to sonship quite frequently.

OK, but surely you can see why I would want proof.

@philokalia said
But it is morally coherent.

Like, we could argue that Marxism is morally coherent, even if you disagree with the particularities of the morality, or that Libertarianism is morally coherent, with the same caveats...

Then explain how it is so?

And err…you are asserting that the burning alive billions of people for eternity is morally coherent, but the “particularities of the morality” aren’t?

Perhaps you are just firing off countermeasures, it it all sounds like jazz-handed bollox to me.

@fmf said
I have probably typed those six words, in quotation marks, several times a week for the last 18 months, very often in posts addressed to you. You seem to be trying to play the man and not the ball, again.

Sure, IDK. There's no getting through to you.

What if I misspoke 18 months ago? Or, even better.... let;s pretend that you 'beat me in a debate' or some such, and I further researched it, and have come to a better conclusion.

doesn't matter.

Debate the position on the board, or all you're doing is talking to yourself.

@divegeester said
Then explain how it is so?

And err…you are asserting that the burning alive billions of people for eternity is morally coherent, but the “particularities of the morality” aren’t?

Perhaps you are just firing off countermeasures, it it all sounds like jazz-handed bollox to me.

I have no idea how many people are in hell - except for that it would be the right number.

I think it is actually rare for people to acively reject God and to not repent for their sins. But it could be a large number.

@philokalia said
I am going to step away.

Saw this coming like the lady wearing pink pyjamas.

@philokalia said
I have no idea how many people are in hell - except for that it would be the right number.

I think it is actually rare for people to acively reject God and to not repent for their sins. But it could be a large number.

So you don’t actually want to defend your statement, you would rather point fiercely to your lack of knowledge about an inconsequential data point and hope I’ll chomp on that…is that your tact now?