24 Jun 21
@philokalia saidHonest, intelligent, thoughtful people can differ over their religious beliefs and lack of religious beliefs.
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?
I've met people who WANTED to believe in Jesus but simply didn't, having given it a chance.
Honest, intelligent, thoughtful people can simply not share your misanthropic ideology of "sinful nature" and a "fallen state".
It appeals to your gut feelings; maybe it doesn't apply to someone else's.
What would be the moral purpose and justification for torturing such people [i.e. those who don't share YOUR beliefs and moral compass <<< this is the 'your narcissism' bit] in burning flames for eternity and for doing so in secret?
24 Jun 21
I am starting to think that the goal of my opponents is not to discuss this, but to waste time, call names, enlarge forum drama.
This is really a pity - and this is why I have made suggestions in the past that we discuss things in a different way, or to even do a Skype call to chat about the issue, which could be a fun way of doing it, and covering a lot of ground. It seems especially relevant since it seems we can barely discuss anything.
I really can't justify investing this much time into a thread, though.
Don't accuse me of running away if you aren't willing to create a throwaway skype or zoom account and have an audio only discussion on the topic.
I'll check in later and see if anyone has said anything relevant.
24 Jun 21
@philokalia saidI used to sell furniture.
Debate the position on the board, or all you're doing is talking to yourself.
Your arguments could be compared to veneered wood rather than solid. I.e. one good jab and you’re through to the chipboard.
@philokalia saidYou always do. You make a string of assertions. You appeal to various confirmation bias authorities. You ignore what is being put to you. You sidestep all questions. You step up the personal remarks. And when all that doesn't achieve whatever it was you wanted to achieve, you "step away".
I am going to step away.
24 Jun 21
Oh, OK, after 40 minutes of nothing, FMF appears to make a statement - I think this is also part of the strategy, to say as little as long as possible and to dangle out debate points in order to make it look like something is happening and justify further interaction.
FMF wrote:
What would be the moral purpose and justification for torturing such people [i.e. those who don't share YOUR beliefs and moral compass <<< this is the 'your narcissism' bit] in burning flames for eternity and for doing so in secret?
The same as the purpose of putting someone who has committed a great crime in jail: they need to be punished for their wrong-doing.
Would it be morally coherent, if there was a God, that a genocidal monster who tortured people during their life would not be punished? No, I think most people agree that hell should be real in some cases, correct?
Thus, for people who actively reject God and do not repent of their sins, they likewise face eternal suffering; they are just not the famous people whose sins are knowable to all of us through their slaughter of others.
Same black heart, different scale.
24 Jun 21
@philokalia saidI don't give two hoots.
OK, but surely you can see why I would want proof.
If people here think I am lying about you, so be it.
24 Jun 21
@philokalia saidI have been debating it. If you say it's not your God figure's design and purpose to have me tortured in burning flames for eternity, and it is not my design and purpose to have myself tortured in burning flames for eternity, it's obviously not going to happen. So what are you on about?
Debate the position on the board, or all you're doing is talking to yourself.
24 Jun 21
@philokalia saidIn the 13 years I’ve been here I’ve hardly talked about anything else, I am very coherent in what I believe about the morality of a god who burns people alive for not believing in him. If you are unable to defend your position without all these countermeasures and jazz-handedness, then so be it.
I am starting to think that the goal of my opponents is not to discuss this, but to waste time, call names, enlarge forum drama.
24 Jun 21
@philokalia saidEr... do you mean: IT WOULD BE THE RIGHT NUMBER BECAUSE IT WOULD BE THE RIGHT NUMBER?
I have no idea how many people are in hell - except for that it would be the right number.
@philokalia saidMore pompous personal remarks instead of dealing with the content of posts.
I am starting to think that the goal of my opponents is not to discuss this, but to waste time, call names, enlarge forum drama. This is really a pity - and this is why I have made suggestions in the past that we discuss things in a different way, or to even do a Skype call to chat about the issue, which could be a fun way of doing it, and covering a lot of ground. ...[text shortened]... audio only discussion on the topic.I'll check in later and see if anyone has said anything relevant.
Have you approached the website and made the "case that this forum is ripe for being closed down" yet?
24 Jun 21
@philokalia saidWhat "great crime" though?
The same as the purpose of putting someone who has committed a great crime in jail: they need to be punished for their wrong-doing.
Do you mean essentially IT IS A GREAT CRIME NOT TO BELIEVE IN JESUS BECAUSE IT IS A GREAT CRIME AND DEAD SAINTS AGREE WITH ME
...is that the long and short of it?
@philokalia saidYou’re an intellectual coward who lacks the depth of knowledge to support his assertions.
I am starting to think that the goal of my opponents is not to discuss this, but to waste time, call names, enlarge forum drama.
This is really a pity - and this is why I have made suggestions in the past that we discuss things in a different way, or to even do a Skype call to chat about the issue, which could be a fun way of doing it, and covering a lot of grou ...[text shortened]... ly[/i] discussion on the topic.
I'll check in later and see if anyone has said anything relevant.
All this “cam to cam” stuff is just Biff Tannen “meet me in the street at 8am you gutless yella turd” tough guy talk, when all you have to do is actually defend your assertions here, now.
24 Jun 21
@philokalia saidPeople thinking "hell should be real" isn't evidence of anything supernatural and is a moral opinion rather than an argument: should people who DON'T think "hell should be real". Remember coherence and credibility are intertwined.
Would it be morally coherent, if there was a God, that a genocidal monster who tortured people during their life would not be punished? No, I think most people agree that hell should be real in some cases, correct?
Genocidal monsters going unapprehended and never facing justice and punishment may be unfortunate or infuriating but how does that make torturing people in burning flames for not sharing your religious beliefs or, indeed, for any thoughtcrimes, morally coherent?
@philokalia saidOnce again:
Don't accuse me of running away if you aren't willing to create a throwaway skype or zoom account and have an audio only discussion on the topic.
I don't want to go "cam-2-cam" with you.
I don't want to talk to you on the phone.
I don't want you to visit me in Indonesia.
I don't want to get drunk with you or find out whether or not you are a fun guy.
I haven't forgotten your needy pleading.
Run away from this thread, if you want.
Try to get the forum closed down, if you must.
24 Jun 21
@fmf said
People thinking "hell should be real" isn't evidence of anything supernatural and is a moral opinion rather than an argument: should people who DON'T think "hell should be real". Remember coherence and credibility are intertwined.
Genocidal monsters going unapprehended and never facing justice and punishment may be unfortunate or infuriating but how does that make torturing pe ...[text shortened]... g flames for not sharing your religious beliefs or, indeed, for any thoughtcrimes, morally coherent?
People thinking "hell should be real" isn't evidence of anything supernatural and is a moral opinion rather than an argument: should people who DON'T think "hell should be real". Remember coherence and credibility are intertwined.
You're just using this wrongly:
1. The quality or state of cohering, especially a logical, orderly, and aesthetically consistent relationship of parts.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/coherence
Something can be coherent, but not credible, e.g., Marxism.
Genocidal monsters going unapprehended and never facing justice and punishment may be unfortunate or infuriating but how does that make torturing people in burning flames for not sharing your religious beliefs or, indeed, for any thoughtcrimes, morally coherent?
As discussed earlier, our sins are enough for us to go to hell. For, they actively transgress the moral order.
Our sins that go unrepented for darken the mind, and incline us towards more sin.
What is the difference between a man who murders someone... and a man who wishes to murder another, but only abstains from it for fear of getting caught? Both are, qualitatively, committing an act of murder in their heart. Why should only those who are powerful enough to manifest such an evil sin be held accountable, but those who would have engaged, but failed to do so, not be held accountable?
This is some of the explanation about the scale of sin being irrelevant. ^^