‘Eternal suffering’ is nonsensical

Originally posted by @fmf
I think you're talking about laws here not morals. Laws can and often do have a moral underpinning, but you're getting morality and laws mixed up. Everyone is free to do as they please as long as they stay within the law. You must have met people who had moral standards different from yours - leading to not-illegal behaviour of which you disapprove. Well, you d ...[text shortened]... ciating with them if that doesn't work. And if they break the law, you can tell the authorities.

No, I said whenever you make a moral argument you evoke a moral law. Try to make a moral argument without evoking a moral law. If you succeed get back to me.

Originally posted by @fmf
Do you? And yet it seems to be you who has dodged what I said. You're getting morality and laws mixed up. Do you disagree?

If you disagree with what I said give me one example of a moral argument that doesn't evoke a moral law. Then think about who the 'lawgiver' is and why we ought to obey them.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
No, I said whenever you make a moral argument you evoke a moral law. Try to make a moral argument without evoking a moral law. If you succeed get back to me.

You are completely sidestepping the answer I gave to your question. Address what I said.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If you disagree with what I said give me one example of a moral argument that doesn't evoke a moral law. Then think about who the 'lawgiver' is and why we ought to obey them.

There are no "moral laws". There are personal moral codes that human beings - like you and me - use to guide themselves in their interactions with each other, and there are human laws which may or may not pertain to morality.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I on the other hand believe there has to be ultimate truth and if you would like to know I could tell you exactly why I believe Dasa's views make no sense using his own assumptions.

Dasa believed there is an ultimate supernatural truth - like you do - and based his assertions about morality on that belief - like you do.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Either everyone is free to behave as they please or they aren’t. If they aren’t who has the right to tell them how they ought to behave?

Everyone is free to do as they please as long as they stay within the law. You must have met people who had moral standards different from yours that gave rise to behaviour of which you disapprove. Well, of course, you do have the right to tell them how they ought to behave.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I have yet to see you make any kind of argument as to why everyone should follow your or someone else's laws.

By "laws" presumably, you mean morals. I do not wish to impose my morals on anyone, aside perhaps from my children, as I mentioned before. You said the same thing recently. You said you do not wish to impose your morals on anyone. Why are you asking me for an argument pertaining to why everyone should follow my morals?

Originally posted by @divegeester
I think he did too. Jesus uttered lots of words, spoke in stories and parables to help his listeners understand his message. The prodigal son was literally a person, was he? There wasn’t really a lost coin, or even a real lost sheep. There is no literal hidden treasure, no literal mustard seed, no actual pearl of great price. The Good Samaritan was a fi ...[text shortened]... It’s not a nonsensical notion when you apply reality to it, it is perfect justice.

Come on!

Here you are sonship, reply to this one.

I think he did too (think that Jesus spoke the word about Lazarus in Luke that you have been quoting).

Jesus uttered lots of words, spoke in stories and parables to help his listeners understand his message. The prodigal son was literally a person, was he? There wasn’t really a lost coin, or even a real lost sheep. There is no literal hidden treasure, no literal mustard seed, no actual pearl of great price. The Good Samaritan was a fictional character to make a point, as was the unjust judge. There isn’t an actual sower of actual seed, it’s a parable a metaphorical analogy.

But hey Gehenna/hell is REAL, oh yes, hell liveth and breatheth is true it’s actual it’s not a parable. It’s not a nonsensical notion when you apply reality to it, it is perfect justice.

Come on!

Originally posted by @fmf
There are no "moral laws". There are personal moral codes that human beings - like you and me - use to guide themselves in their interactions with each other, and there are human laws which may or may not pertain to morality.

moral law
noun
(in some systems of ethics) an absolute principle defining the criteria of right action (whether conceived as a divine ordinance or a truth of reason).

Moral laws clearly do exist in some systems of ethics. You are welcome to bury your head in the sand and pretend otherwise.

Originally posted by @fmf
Everyone is free to do as they please as long as they stay within the law. You must have met people who had moral standards different from yours that gave rise to behaviour of which you disapprove. Well, of course, you do have the right to tell them how they ought to behave.

If all laws are made up by humans, what gives one human the right to tell another human what they are or aren't allowed to do?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If all laws are made up by humans, what gives one human the right to tell another human what they are or aren't allowed to do?

The "right"? The right to free speech ~ in places where it is not curtailed ~ allows us to comment on and criticize each other's behaviour. As for laws limiting what citizens are or aren't allowed to do, they are best produced by democratic societies where the citizens' representatives play the role of legislators on behalf of society and are accountable in how they perform that duty.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Moral laws clearly do exist in some systems of ethics. You are welcome to bury your head in the sand and pretend otherwise.

moral law - noun - (in some systems of ethics) an absolute principle defining the criteria of right action (whether conceived as a divine ordinance or a truth of reason).

Well, I live in a society comprising free moral agents and laws passed by the citizens' elected representatives; I don't live inside the premise of a philosophical or ethical debate where the vocabulary item "law" is clearly used in a different way. Next - being the sophist you are - you will perhaps be asking me which legislator passed the "law" of gravity.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Here you are sonship, reply to this one.

I think he did too (think that Jesus spoke the word about Lazarus in Luke that you have been quoting).

Jesus uttered lots of words, spoke in stories and parables to help his listeners understand his message. The prodigal son was literally a person, was he? There wasn’t really a lost coin, or even a real lo ...[text shortened]... It’s not a nonsensical notion when you apply reality to it, it is perfect justice.

Come on!

Here you are sonship, reply to this one.

I think he did too (think that Jesus spoke the word about Lazarus in Luke that you have been quoting).

This is the rationale that the lesson of Luke 16:19-31 is a parable. And its details should not be taken literally.

If it is a parable it is a singly unique one because in no other parable did Jesus mention a specific name like Lazarus. It would stand out among every other parable that Jesus taught.

So some justifiably doubt that it is a parable.
Rather it is a record of something that Jesus had somehow observed to occur.

But even if it is a parable, one has to consider what lesson is being taught. If I imagine that Luke 16:19-31 is a parable it still is frightful and sober as to its details.

"Your fortune after you die may be reversed as to your comfort while living and ignoring the word of God."

And that is NOT annihilation's hope. The expectation of Annihilation is not that your fortune after death could be the opposite but would not exist at all - oblivion.

I lean towards it being a record of something Jesus knew happened. Sometimes I think it may have been something that happened even while He was ministering before His cross. But I certainly don't know that.

IF Annihilation is being taught in the "parable" then the extra details would have been dishonest and unrighteous for Jesus to have made the main characteristic of the account.

Originally posted by @sonship

Eternal torment for all non Christians is your invention.

What I did not invent is that the Bible says all those whose names were not written in the book of life are cast into the lake of fire [b](Rev. 20:15) .

And I did not invent the definite apostolic proclamation showing that if we confess with our mouth Jesus as Lord and b ...[text shortened]... nnial age. Well, you didn't invent it. But you believed some false teachers who taught you that.[/b]

LOL .. You are a comedian. Eternal torment is your creation. The passages you continue to quote does not contain the expression eternal torment or any thing remotely resembling it.

The same Paul said that SAVED Christians can be cast out of the Kingdom of God. Here again you read part of Pauls writings and ignore the part you dont like. SAVED does not mean automatic entry into Gods Kingdom.

Jesus said that regeneration occurs ONLY WHEN HE RETURNS. If you think of Jesus as a false teacher then you going to be cast into that lake of fire yourself pal so you better revise you beliefs and repent.

This is the definition of brainwashed. You cannot see. You cannot read. You cannot understand.

Originally posted by @sonship

I dont know who are the ones worshipping the Beast referred to in Revelation, but I would be wary of jumping to the conclusion that they will be tormented for eternity.

[b]Revelation 14:9 refers to "If anyone ...".
And verse 11 refer's to "their tormenting".
And verse 11 refers to "they".
And it further refers ...[text shortened]... other passage like that about ordinary humans. [/quote]

This is shown to be unreliable above.[/b]

Yep .. and Sodom and Gomorrah is still burning in the eternal fire, and the inhabitants still in eternal torment.