@fmf saidYeah I was actually thinking along the lines of this:
Once again:
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.
Except nobody would really watch it and it could be deleted.
We could get Dive to moderate.
It would make sense because it is a struggle to cover any material.
@fmf saidIf hell is real, and God presides over it, and God is omniscient... Why wouldn't it be the right number?
Er... do you mean: IT WOULD BE THE RIGHT NUMBER BECAUSE IT WOULD BE THE RIGHT NUMBER?
@philokalia saidIf you don't want to debate the morality of the torturer God ideology here on this forum, so be it.
Yeah I was actually thinking along the lines of this:
.
@fmf saidThen stop evading the points & repeating yourself.
If you don't want to debate the morality of the torturer God ideology here on this forum, so be it.
@philokalia saidIf I don't believe there is a God figure like the one you describe, one who is omniscient, vengeful, wrathful, etc. What would be the moral purpose of torturing me after I die?
If hell is real, and God presides over it, and God is omniscient... Why wouldn't it be the right number?
@philokalia saidMy sidestepped questions await you. The ball is in your court.
Then stop evading the points & repeating yourself.
@philokalia saidRecently I asked you a question about 12 times and you blanked it each time.
Then stop evading the points & repeating yourself.
Why did you do that, if it is not you “evading points”?
@fmf saidWhy have I said people go to hell?
If I don't believe there is a God figure like the one you describe, one who is omniscient, vengeful, wrathful, etc. What would be the moral purpose of torturing me after I die?
I've said it many times in this thread.
@divegeester saidI sometimes ignore comments that I don't think have value or are just meant to troll.
Recently I asked you a question about 12 times and you blanked it each time.
Why did you do that, if it is not you “evading points”?
Which is everyone's right.
@philokalia saidCredibility and coherence are intertwined.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:
[quote]1. The quality or state of cohering, especially a logical, orderly, and aesthetical ...[text shortened]... be held accountable?
This is some of the explanation about the scale of sin being irrelevant. ^^
Furthermore, whether it's a lack of credibility or a lack of coherence that I perceive, what would be the moral justification for 30,000,000,000 years of torture and then 300,000,000,000 more years and then infinity beyond that?
@philokalia saidWell you made an assertion and I challenged you on it.
I sometimes ignore comments that I don't think have value or are just meant to troll.
You blanked it because you couldn’t answer my question.
I think you are more used to debating with people who are impressed with your veneered regurgitations appealing to the wittering of St Willy of Wolverhampton or whatever your church leaders have told you.
@fmf said(1) You have only repeated yourself on this.
Credibility and coherence are intertwined.
Furthermore, whether it's a lack of credibility or a lack of coherence that I perceive, what would be the moral justification for 30,000,000,000 years of torture and then 300,000,000,000 more years and then infinity beyond that?
(2) It's not torture: it is the direct consequence of how one has lived, and, as the soul is eternal, and heaven is eternal, why is it wrong that hell is eternal?
What piece of logic shows that it is wrong? What argument?
@divegeester saidYou know, we really shouldn't debate. We should focus just on discussing.
Well you made an assertion and I challenged you on it.
You blanked it because you couldn’t answer my question.
I think you are more used to debating with people who are impressed with your veneered regurgitations appealing to the wittering of St Willy of Wolverhampton or whatever your church leaders have told you.
We should not have any kind of enmity in our interactions.
@philokalia saidWhy are you arguing over semantics such as “tortured” or numerical nuances about how many billions are being burned alive…instead of addressing the challenges of the concept itself; I.e. it being morally abhorrent and intellectually incomprehensible?
(1) You have only repeated yourself on this.
(2) It's not torture: it is the direct consequence of how one has lived, and, as the soul is eternal, and heaven is eternal, why is it wrong that hell is eternal?
What piece of logic shows that it is wrong? What argument?
@philokalia saidMore evasion.
You know, we really shouldn't debate. We should focus just on discussing.
We should not have any kind of enmity in our interactions.
You really don’t have anything on this topic other than assertions, do you?