Originally posted by lemon limeThe original [in the OP] "question of honesty" was about RJHinds using a chess engine in the past. The thread has drifted since then and alighted upon a topic that has been discussed in various ways across various threads.
Is this really "a question of honesty", or is it a question of what you are willing to believe?
Originally posted by lemon limeDo you yourself believe that "eternal torment" for non-believers is a "reality"? If so, what is the difference between you exercising your will and wish by going online to propagate this notion, on one hand, and those who respond by arguing that it doesn't make enough moral sense to be a "reality", on the other?
Tell yourself that hell is simply a metaphor for people who go online, and allow themselves to be tormented by goofs who think reality will bend to their will and become whatever they wish it to be.
Originally posted by FMFI see. So apparently the original idea was to emulate Satan, who if you recall is also known as "the accuser of the brethren". I don't see how this helps divegeester convince anyone he is a Christian. You haven't been much help to him either, unless there is some hidden agenda at work here.
The original [in the OP] "question of honesty" was about RJHinds using a chess engine in the past. The thread has drifted since then and alighted upon a topic that has been discussed in various ways across various threads.
Originally posted by FMFOkay, I get what you're doing now. You're not really thinking about the responses you get, you just continue asking leading questions until you get an answer you can work with. You don't really give a rats a** what anyone says or believes, you're only interested in hammering away at someone until they say something you can use. This explains a lot, like how you never seemed to get it straight in your head what I was saying about evidence.
Do you yourself believe that "eternal torment" for non-believers is a "reality"? If so, what is the difference between you exercising your will and wish by going online to propagate this notion, on one hand, and those who respond by arguing that it doesn't make enough moral sense to be a "reality", on the other?
Originally posted by lemon limeThe suggestion that RJHinds has used a chess engine on this site is not a controversial one. It has no bearing at all on the fact that divegeester is a Christian.
I see. So apparently the original idea was to emulate Satan, who if you recall is also known as "the accuser of the brethren". I don't see how this helps divegeester convince anyone he is a Christian. You haven't been much help to him either, unless there is some hidden agenda at work here.
Originally posted by lemon limeThis response makes no effort to address the question about how a person who made it to "heaven" would feel about their beloved spouse or children were being tortured in burning agony for all eternity.
Okay, I get what you're doing now. You're not really thinking about the responses you get, you just continue asking leading questions until you get an answer you can work with. You don't really give a rats a** what anyone says or believes, you're only interested in hammering away at someone until they say something you can use. This explains a lot, like how you never seemed to get it straight in your head what I was saying about evidence.
You seemed to have consigned this lifelong love and devotion and compassion to a box called 'crap' for a person on arrival at "heaven", but I can't believe this is anything other than a dismissive and facetious answer.
In terms of morality and psychology, it just strikes a jarring chord that doesn't really make sense. Rather than make comments about me, why don't you try to explain this odd and implausible notion that you have put forward as "reality"?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFThis response makes no effort to address the question about how a person who made it to "heaven" would feel about their beloved spouse or children were being tortured in burning agony for all eternity.
This response makes no effort to address the question about how a person who made it to "heaven" would feel about their beloved spouse or children were being tortured in burning agony for all eternity.
You seemed to have consigned this lifelong love and devotion and compassion to a box called 'crap' for a person on arrival at "heaven", but I can't believe th ...[text shortened]... don't you try to explain this odd and implausible notion that you have put forward as "reality"?
That's because I've already answered this. I answered you last night, so it's not like you can't go back to find it because it's buried beneath a ton of spam, or because it's something that was said months or years ago. The fact that you're ignoring it or didn't bother to read it isn't enough to compel me to repeat myself.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFIn terms of morality and psychology, it just strikes a jarring chord that doesn't really make sense.
This response makes no effort to address the question about how a person who made it to "heaven" would feel about their beloved spouse or children were being tortured in burning agony for all eternity.
You seemed to have consigned this lifelong love and devotion and compassion to a box called 'crap' for a person on arrival at "heaven", but I can't believe th ...[text shortened]... don't you try to explain this odd and implausible notion that you have put forward as "reality"?
It doesn't make sense to you because you're only looking at this through the filter of your own sense of morality and psychology. There are as many different versions of a sense of morality and psychology as there are people. So what do you suggest, that humanity have a contest to see whose sense of morality and psychology prevails? Should we have a war to see who gets to foist his sense of morality and psychology onto the rest of humanity?
I don't believe you've thought this through... in fact your reasoning appears to be nothing more than an appeal to the emotions.