Spirituality
06 May 17
07 May 17
Originally posted by FMFTalk about scepticism, sheesh Kelly, if you really believe that why post at all?
[b]I'm telling you from experience with some here, it does not matter what you say, it does not matter what you mean, nothing that comes from you matters. What will matter to them is going to be what they think about you, they can accuse you of some of the most horrible things that can be said and justify themselves due to their twisted self-importance. You will ...[text shortened]... them.
And so have it, KellyJay's manifesto for this debate and discussion message board.[/b]
(I realize that this is in response to your post, FMF, however i'm just trying to kill 2 birds with 1 stone here)
07 May 17
Originally posted by KellyJay"specific vague" ... now that is vague.
What are you upset about? Be specific vague doesn't cut it.
I'm not upset really. I just don't see how you cant come to the conclusion that a god, such as the one you claim to support, wouldn't want to empower the people that live by "his" principles.
You pay a lot of lip service to some awful things that your god does, but then say that we are being insincere when we ask questions about your posts.
Is this specific enough?
I mean it's not like we're a bunch of 'nasty muslims' trying to gang up you.
Lets take me, FMF and divegeester. One Christian, one former Christian, and one Hindu.
It's hardly like we're the three musketeers like say Robbie carrobie, roagim and Galveston once were.
Not to mention all the other posters.
I've had nasty interactions with just about all the posters here, especially the ones I've mentioned here, which shows that we are not in league against you or anything like that.
We're just calling them as we see them.
Originally posted by FMFThough you obviously want to be obtuse and argue about the difference between being condemned to hell for (a) eventual destruction, or (b) endless torment... the essential question doesn't change.
The actual consequence of being "condemned" is crucial to addressing your question. Clearly, the "purpose" would not be the same for [1] letting created beings cease to exist at the end of their lives for having not done what was necessary, on one hand, and [2] torturing created beings and not allowing them to cease to exist (as revenge for having not done what ...[text shortened]... ime.
So what is the nature of the "condemnation" and its consequences as intended by your OP?
Not a single person has addressed the actual question of God's purpose or the question of the hypothetical unrepentant unbeliever's purpose. Instead, we've spent half a dozen pages arguing about whether the soul will be tortured, tortured and destroyed, or just destroyed. Those are secondary considerations.
Yet, you INSIST on making them primary. Why?
Originally posted by Tom WolseyI'll address it right now.
Though you obviously want to be obtuse and argue about the difference between being condemned to hell for (a) eventual destruction, or (b) endless torment... the essential question doesn't change.
Not a single person has addressed the actual question of God's purpose or the question of the hypothetical unrepentant unbeliever's purpose. Instead, we've ...[text shortened]... destroyed. Those are secondary considerations.
Yet, you INSIST on making them primary. Why?
Are these the only 2 options?
I don't believe in hell. I do believe in a type of purgatory. Why , because a loving god wouldn't put anyone to eternal suffering.
It could be argued that for some, their lives on this Earth right now is purgatory.
Hindus believe that if you are particularly bad then you wont just be reincarnated as a 'lower' life form in a bad situation, but that you may be reincarnated onto one of the 'hellish planets' into god knows what life form.
But why dwell on the negative? Lets be positive and follow the light of love, intelligence and harmony with all sentient beings.
When we come up against adversity, and we still have oxygen in our brains to keep us going, lets keep going in the right direction.
The right direction is the same for everyone, but how we get there is always unique and individual. No one can do that except you (I don't just mean you, Tommy, I mean everyone 😉 )
edit: oops I've answered the wrong question.
"The role of the unrepentant skeptic" ? ...are you referring to atheists or skeptics of hell? Answer that and we can move on
Originally posted by karoly aczelI have no issues with questions, I don't appreciate being malign for points and positions I am not making or made. Do you have something specific to ask about or being vague is all you are about, since I don't talk about living by principles. So you have a real complaint or you just wanted to complain?
"specific vague" ... now that is vague.
I'm not upset really. I just don't see how you cant come to the conclusion that a god, such as the one you claim to support, wouldn't want to empower the people that live by "his" principles.
You pay a lot of lip service to some awful things that your god does, but then say that we are being insincere when we ask questions about your posts.
Is this specific enough?
Originally posted by Tom WolseyYou cannot dismiss my question by simply labelling it "obtuse". The difference between what the purposes are for two such utterly different ways of treating living things cannot be treated as one. It's nonsensical.
Though you obviously want to be obtuse and argue about the difference between being condemned to hell for (a) eventual destruction, or (b) endless torment... the essential question doesn't change.
Originally posted by Tom WolseyMy question is not a "secondary consideration" at all. And you have spent "half a dozen pages" dodging it because you haven't thought through your OP question at all. You cannot ascribe the same nature, intent, morality, purpose to [1] a being that decides not to keep a creature alive beyond its natural lifespan, on one hand, and [2] a being that decides to keep a creature alive in order to torture it forever. The two courses of action are essentially incomparable and yet you seek a common "purpose" for both? I think you have your tongue in your cheek.
Not a single person has addressed the actual question of God's purpose or the question of the hypothetical unrepentant unbeliever's purpose. Instead, we've spent half a dozen pages arguing about whether the soul will be tortured, tortured and destroyed, or just destroyed. Those are secondary considerations.
08 May 17
Originally posted by KellyJayI'm not complaining. I don't have a complaint.
I have no issues with questions, I don't appreciate being malign for points and positions I am not making or made. Do you have something specific to ask about or being vague is all you are about, since I don't talk about living by principles. So you have a real complaint or you just wanted to complain?
You asked me to be specific.
are you seriously telling me that you don't live by (and advocate) the principles of some form of Christianity?
( You sound paranoid at times to me. JUst to let you know, I am who I claim to be, no lies or deceptions here. Now you can only trust me if you trust yourself first. Trust yourself to be in accord with your conscience . I'm no so sure you are at peace with that, but feel free to prove m wrong )
Originally posted by karoly aczelThat is right, principles are just more man made things to do. What I'm telling you is God wants save you, restore your relationship with Him, give you His Holy Spirit so He can share with you. The is far more than principles!
I'm not complaining. I don't have a complaint.
You asked me to be specific.
are you seriously telling me that you don't live by (and advocate) the principles of some form of Christianity?
( You sound paranoid at times to me. JUst to let you know, I am who I claim to be, no lies or deceptions here. Now you can only trust me if you trust yoursel ...[text shortened]... th your conscience . I'm no so sure you are at peace with that, but feel free to prove m wrong )
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd what I'm saying to you, prolly more than anything else at this point is that your perceived separation between you and "god" is just that - perceived. And in my humble opinion ill-perceived.
That is right, principles are just more man made things to do. What I'm telling you is God wants save you, restore your relationship with Him, give you His Holy Spirit so He can share with you. The is far more than principles!
It's not just you, it seems the majority of the world is afflicted by this problem.
So when you say " God wants save you" , I perhaps am in a better position with this so called "God" than say ... you.
I am trying to eliminate the separation, the illusion of separation to be more precise.
This is the basis of my holistic principles. That whatever part of "god" you/we "pick up" the whole is contained in every piece of ... god.
You see good and evil and see them in opposition to each other. But you know they all come from the same "god" . How can you reconcile this?
08 May 17
Originally posted by karoly aczelThe thing is all of us are sinners, every single one without exception, that is scripture not
And what I'm saying to you, prolly more than anything else at this point is that your perceived separation between you and "god" is just that - perceived. And in my humble opinion ill-perceived.
It's not just you, it seems the majority of the world is afflicted by this problem.
So when you say " God wants save you" , I perhaps am in a better posit ...[text shortened]... tion to each other. But you know they all come from the same "god" . How can you reconcile this?
my opinion. We are sinners who follow our fleshly desires, that is scripture not my opinion.
As we walk out life in the flesh we cannot please God and are hostile towards Him, that
is scripture not my opinion. Without God's Spirit in you, you do not belong to God, and that
too is scripture is isn't a matter of opinion.
08 May 17
Originally posted by FMFPerhaps there will be a universal truth behind it all...
My question is not a "secondary consideration" at all. And you have spent "half a dozen pages" dodging it because you haven't thought through your OP question at all. You cannot ascribe the same nature, intent, morality, purpose to [1] a being that decides not to keep a creature alive beyond its natural lifespan, on one hand, and [2] a being that decides to keep ...[text shortened]... arable and yet you seek a common "purpose" for both? I think you have your tongue in your cheek.
08 May 17
Originally posted by Tom WolseySeems fairly clear that one or more of your 'givens' is wrong.
This one gets me thinking. For the sake of argument, let's say the bible is absolutely correct, at least on the significant things related to doctrine.
God is omniscient, and knows everything that has or will come to pass. This means that in the case of the skeptic that dies in a state of unbelief and unrepentance -- God pre-ordained his or her life ...[text shortened]... have loved and lost, than to have never loved at all." (replace loved with lived)
Thoughts?
If it is the case that there exists unrepentant sceptics created by god only to be destroyed or whatever, then clearly this god is an assshole. So maybe there is no god, or maybe the bible is a bunch of crap, or maybe even a good sceptic can be saved.