Originally posted by PudgenikIf I have inadvertently exposed any groupthink or plan to seek refuge in groupthink, then that was not my intention. 😉
Better off not responding to FMF. He likes to go off on tangents, arguing for the sake of arguing. Or worse, just getting you all wound up for his own amusement.
20 Aug 14
Originally posted by PudgenikI'll give him some hypothetical room to think this over. I don't want him to blow a fuse...
Better off not responding to FMF. He likes to go off on tangents, arguing for the sake of arguing. Or worse, just getting you all wound up for his own amusement.
or do I?
Originally posted by lemon lime"Blow a fuse"? "Worked up"? "Worried?" "Scared"? You seem to be under some considerable misapprehension about the effect of your forum posts. I have always enjoyed engaging people with different beliefs from me. I find this forum in particular to be entertaining from time to time. Talk to Pudgenik about me, by all means, but don't imagine me to be anything other than quite serene and happy about being a contributor to this community. And perhaps you should try not to overestimate the effect you have on someone like me, just as I am under no illusions about the import or traction of what I believe and what I say. 🙂
I'll give him some hypothetical room to think this over. I don't want him to blow a fuse...
or do I?
20 Aug 14
Originally posted by whodeyThe church comprised of the saints that will occupy the Kingdom of God on the earth. That would include every saved individual from genesis to Acts chapter 9.
.., what was Jesus talking about?
That is the church that Jesus was talking about.
The church which is Christ's Body hadn't even been created yet at the time of Jesus' earthly ministry. The church which is Christ's Body will one day occupy the heavens.
20 Aug 14
Originally posted by lemon limeSorry, but you've missed the point entirely. What I am addressing is your underlying assumption that nonexistence of hell equates to nonexistence of "consequence for being evil". That's nonsense and, like I already said, indicative of a stunted moral outlook.
Saying "There are plenty of consequences of being evil..." doesn't answer my question. My question was "Why would anyone [b]need to choose between good and evil if there is no consequence for being evil?" Not why would anyone choose, but why would anyone need to choose.
I'm assuming you are older than 10... ?[/b]
Do you get it now? Your question is silly and grotesque in context, predicated on a silly assumption that no mature moral inquirer takes seriously.
21 Aug 14
Originally posted by FMFFMF sometimes you can really get into some good discussion. And i love that. But often the impression you give me is arguing just for the sake of arguing. And i get to the point where i just ignore you.
"Blow a fuse"? "Worked up"? "Worried?" "Scared"? You seem to be under some considerable misapprehension about the effect of your forum posts. I have always enjoyed engaging people with different beliefs from me. I find this forum in particular to be entertaining from time to time. Talk to Pudgenik about me, by all means, but don't imagine me to be anything other ...[text shortened]... ust as I am under no illusions about the import or traction of what I believe and what I say. 🙂
21 Aug 14
Originally posted by FMFok, i will get my head out of the clouds. Maybe i take things to serious here. Silly me.
If I have inadvertently exposed any groupthink or plan to seek refuge in groupthink, then that was not my intention. 😉
Hey i had to put in for that thread on the dirt in the garden of eden. Sonhouse said it best though. ha ha
21 Aug 14
Originally posted by LemonJelloNo, assuming an underlying assumption is silly and grotesque.
Sorry, but you've missed the point entirely. What I am addressing is your underlying assumption that nonexistence of hell equates to nonexistence of "consequence for being evil". That's nonsense and, like I already said, indicative of a stunted moral outlook.
Do you get it now? Your question is silly and grotesque in context, predicated on a silly assumption that no mature moral inquirer takes seriously.
It is the assuming of an unseen and underlying assumption that no mature moral inquirer would take seriously or could even be so easily distracted from seeing what is obviously clearly stated and lying on the surface for anyone other than an overly self indulgent poo-poo head to see.
21 Aug 14
Originally posted by FMF...the original question I asked, and which remains not directly addressed: What effect on the "need for protection and prisons" do you think the threat of "Hell" has or has had [as a purported "consequence for being evil"]?
You continue to miss the point. I am obviously not "scared" of your threats. As I said earlier, the "consequence" of your threats might, at most, be to make some people afraid or modify their behaviour ~ assuming that they have the same beliefs as you. Which brings us back to the original question I asked, and which remains not directly addressed: What effect on ...[text shortened]... do you think the threat of "Hell" has or has had [as a purported "consequence for being evil"]?
This is a good example of why I do not take much of what you say seriously.
The reason I did not address your question is because your question was rubbish. What I said about protection and prisons was a response to someone else, and my answer to him (him, not you) pertained to his comment about empathy. It had nothing to do with you or the conversation I was having with you... which was barely more than rubbish now that I think about it.
But that's okay, you just keep on talking and mixing and mashing up messages and asking your questions about the Frankenstein monsters you conjure up in your head. I don't actually need to say much of anything to get you started, so this should be more than enough to get you started up again and keep you going for awhile.
Originally posted by lemon limeMy question was a direct response to your post. If you don't want to answer it, that's fine. There will be those who think my question is "rubbish" as you do. And there will be those who will notice that you are at pains not to answer it and are not very adept at talking to people you disagree with. Such different perspectives are par for the course in a public forum.
The reason I did not address your question is because your question was rubbish.
Originally posted by lemon limeIf, as you say, "empathy" doesn't "stave off evil" or lessen your "need for protection and prisons", do you think the threat of "Hell", as the supposed "consequence of being evil", can or does or ever has?
Unfortunately for many people empathy is only a concept. But even for those who have boat loads of empathy it hasn't proven to be much of a driving force to stave off evil... if it were then there would be little need for protection and prisons.
21 Aug 14
Originally posted by FMFI could ask if you think hell is a consequence of evil or a rejection of God, or a deterrent to crime, but don't you think that would be a nonsensical question for me to ask of you?
If, as you say, "empathy" doesn't "stave off evil" or lessen your "need for protection and prisons", do you think the threat of "Hell", as the supposed "consequence of being evil", can or does or ever has?
If you don't believe in an afterlife then none of this should this be of any concern to you. It concerns me because I do believe it, so why can't you be content to let me be concerned about what may happen to me after my physical body stops working? How is that any of your business? If you're concerned about me forcing my beliefs on you then all I can say to you about that is "grow up"... I'm no more able to force my beliefs on you than you are able to force you're beliefs on me.
I will act according to what I believe and you will act according to what you believe. I don't expect you to believe anything I believe, so unless it bothers you that I don't share your beliefs you have nothing to be bothered with. As I have already (repeatedly) said that's between you and whatever, not between you and me. But for some reason this doesn't seem to register with you. Why is that?
I think it's because this has simply been a war of words for you. You react too quickly for it to be anything else.
21 Aug 14
Originally posted by FMFWow, and there it is... I don't know how I missed that!
My question was a direct response to your post. If you don't want to answer it, that's fine. There will be those who think my question is "rubbish" as you do. And there will be those who will notice that you are at pains not to answer it and are not very adept at talking to people you disagree with. Such different perspectives are par for the course in a public forum.
This is not just a war of words for you, you're playing up to the gallery! One eye always trained on your audience, is that it? So it appears your main concern is not so much anything we might be saying, this is all about those you imagine reading this... what they think of you, and what they think of me. LOL
Watch out for those thumbs... them thumbs can be fickle at times like this, when ya really need em'... LOL
Originally posted by lemon limeI am not trying to impose anything on you, I don't feel as if you are trying to impose anything one me, and I am unaware of any "war of words" here. The point blank question ~ one more time ~ is, do you think the threat of "Hell" does, ever has, or can, lessen the "need for protection and prisons" in a way that "boatloads of empathy" doesn't or hasn't? I am simply examining the assertions you have made on this debate/discussion forum.
I could ask if you think hell is a consequence of evil or a rejection of God, or a deterrent to crime, but don't you think that would be a nonsensical question for me to ask of you?
If you don't believe in an afterlife then none of this should this be of any concern to you. It concerns me because I do believe it, so why can't you be content to let me b ...[text shortened]... e this has simply been a war of words for you. You react too quickly for it to be anything else.