15 Jun 21
@fmf saidI do not believe that such a connection is absolutely necessary from the deist perspective, but thanks for that background information, FMF. Really cool.
You remind me of dj2becker who, despite talking to almost no one else here, would constantly insist that he could not remember anything we had talked about. Here is my stance: I do not reject the idea that there may be some sort of creator entity or being. The "Deism" thread was a thought exercise about ticking the Where We Came From box and so heading off the breathless 'we were created so the whole concept of Substitutionary Atonement must be true' "argument" at the pass.
15 Jun 21
@philokalia saidYou are mistaken. I have addressed your notion of "free will" two or three times and you have simply ignored it.
You have not adequately talked about free will and our own choices; you just gave us the very strained original post about what constitutes a 'good father,' and then when pressed on it, you attacked from an entirely different angle
@philokalia saidLike I said [but you seem to be blanking it out so that you can try a strawman], the moral incoherence of the torturer God ideology renders it not credible. Coherence and credibility are intertwined.
You have not adequately talked about free will and our own choices; you just gave us the very strained original post about what constitutes a 'good father,' and then when pressed on it, you attacked from an entirely different angle:
hell isn't real!
15 Jun 21
@philokalia saidYou are such a phoney. The first time, on page 4, I pasted the words The "Deism" thread was a thought exercise about ticking the Where We Came From box and so heading off the breathless 'we were created so the whole concept of Substitutionary Atonement must be true' "argument" at the pass and you get your shorts knotted, and feign exasperation at a lack of information/cooperation.
I do not believe that such a connection is absolutely necessary from the deist perspective, but thanks for that background information, FMF. Really cool.
I then copy-paste exactly the same words again on page 5... The "Deism" thread was a thought exercise about ticking the Where We Came From box and so heading off the breathless 'we were created so the whole concept of Substitutionary Atonement must be true' "argument" at the pass and you're oozing obsequiously: "...thanks for that background information, FMF. Really cool."
15 Jun 21
@philokalia saidIt's an analogy. If it is "strained", you haven't said why. You have referred in a kind of generic way to "free will" ~ seemingly contending that your wishy-washy mention of it [...you basically ignored earlier attempts to discuss how "free will" might or might not apply to superstition and belief in supernatural causality] ~ that mentioning "free will" somehow justifies supernatural torture ~ and when pressed on it, you then ignore attempts to engage you.
You have not adequately talked about free will and our own choices; you just gave us the very strained original post about what constitutes a 'good father,' and then when pressed on it, you attacked from an entirely different angle.
15 Jun 21
@Philokalia
I do not believe that such a connection is absolutely necessary from the deist perspective...
Whoosh...
15 Jun 21
@fmf saidActually, if we go back to page two, we see that you immediately began shifting away from discussions on free will:
It's an analogy. If it is "strained", you haven't said why. You have referred in a kind of generic way to "free will" ~ seemingly contending that your wishy-washy mention of it [...you basically ignored earlier attempts to discuss how "free will" might or might not apply to superstition and belief in supernatural causality] ~ that mentioning "free will" somehow justifies supernatural torture ~ and when pressed on it, you then ignore attempts to engage you.
https://i.postimg.cc/RZF7v71z/Screenshot-1.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/4xSzyYwH/Screenshot-2.jpg
Then, in response to me trying to get this back to free will, we got this over the next few pages:
https://i.postimg.cc/R01V883C/Screenshot-3.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/qRkMdLns/Screenshot-4.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/HnnYrk6j/Screenshot-5.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/4dB449br/Screenshot-6.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/2ytzhNtG/Screenshot-7.jpg
At what point were you planning on engaging about free will again?
It seems all you want to discuss are...
- Not believing in hell
- Forum politics
This is likely because you do not have a very convincing argument.
15 Jun 21
@fmf saidSo we agree on that, I guess. ^^
@Philokalia
I do not believe that such a connection is absolutely necessary from the deist perspective...
Whoosh...
15 Jun 21
@philokalia saidIf you read any of my posts about it and respond directly or in an otherwise genuine way, I am happy to see what you say.
At what point were you planning on engaging about free will again?
It seems all you want to discuss are...
- Not believing in hell
- Forum politics
This is likely because you do not have a very convincing argument.
15 Jun 21
@philokalia saidNo. Judging by your retort, I think you just didn't understand. Nevermind.
So we agree on that, I guess. ^^
15 Jun 21
@philokalia saidYou are mistaken. I didn't shift away from it at all. I even started a thread about free will v faith called "Free Gift" which you have ignored. Anyway like I said, you have waved a hand in the direction of generic "free will" ~ seemingly suggesting that your wishy-washy mention of it somehow justifies supernatural torture.
Actually, if we go back to page two, we see that you immediately began shifting away from discussions on free will:
@philokalia saidMmm, so you claim. And yet the only "arguments" you ever seem to have put forward about the morality [more specifically, the moral coherence] of eternal torture [and therefore the whole question of whether such a morally nonsensical thing exists at all] has been dollops of circular logic, like You will be tortured because you will be tortured, It is morally justified because it is morally justified, etc. etc. And when pressed, you climax with You will torture yourself and God has nothing to do with it because you will torture yourself and God has nothing to do with it because it's like cutting yourself when chopping onions.
This is likely because you do not have a very convincing argument.
15 Jun 21
@fmf saidOK,whatis your response to:
If you read any of my posts about it and respond directly or in an otherwise genuine way, I am happy to see what you say.
So, you should not be responsible for the choices that you made that were bad... you should be able to opt out of these choices whenever in the future..?
You are not responsible for the future you choose for yourself..?
I don't understand.
It sounds like you're saying, "I want to be able to choose to disavow God and denounce Him, but I shouldn't have to face this music if there is a God because I did not really choose that..."
The good news is that I think there is potential for people who really did not want to choose to be away from God to maybe find themselves to be shown his mercy. I don't know. I am not the one who is involved with such a decision.
15 Jun 21
@fmf saidWhere did I make this argument?
Mmm, so you claim. And yet the only "arguments" you ever seem to have put forward about the morality [more specifically, the moral coherence] of eternal torture [and therefore the whole question of whether such a morally nonsensical thing exists at all] has been dollops of circular logic, like You will be tortured because you will be tortured, It is morally justified because it ...[text shortened]... yourself and God has nothing to do with it because it's like cutting yourself when chopping onions.
Or is this based on FMF memory?
15 Jun 21
@philokalia saidI take it you are pretending not to have read the 1,000 or so words I wrote - for you - about the nature of faith in supernatural things and about the whole notion of supposedly choosing or deciding when one is in the realm of faith in supernatural beings that cannot be shown objectively to exist?
OK,whatis your response to:
So, you should not be responsible for the choices that you made that were bad... you should be able to opt out of these choices whenever in the future..?
You are not responsible for the future you choose for yourself..?
I don't understand.
It sounds like you're saying, "I want to be able to choose to disavow God and denounce H ...[text shortened]... to be shown his mercy. I don't know. I am not the one who is involved with such a decision.