Spirituality

Spirituality

  1. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    9222
    04 Feb '19 18:503 edits
    Ie. In the subway station before one walks off the platform and walks along the tracks, like a worker -

    A sign points to the third rail in bright red letters -

    Warning - High Voltage

    For the system necessarily only operates if high voltage electricity runs through the third rail. But it is enough to kill anyone who touches it without rubber boots or special rubber gloves. Maybe some other words in the warning indicate that to touch the rail likely will result in death.

    Should someone complain to the civil engineers.

    " I do not appreciate you putting up that sign to threaten me. It appears that your threat is designed to coerce me into behavior you unfairly want. I should have the freedom to do whatever I please. "

    Are all warnings to be taken as threats?
  2. SubscriberBigDoggProblem
    Just...the Dogg
    bigdogghouse.com/RHP
    Joined
    26 Nov '04
    Moves
    122774
    04 Feb '19 19:22
    @sonship saidAre all warnings to be taken as threats?
    Nope.

    Warnings are threats when an intelligent being declares intent to cause harm if the warning isn't heeded.
  3. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29885
    04 Feb '19 19:411 edit
    @sonship said
    Are all warnings to be taken as threats?
    Not all warnings are threats bit if the "warning" is that some kind of violence is going to be a perpetrated against someone and it is framed in terms of vengeance and wrath, then it's certainly a "threat" and attempted "coercion".
  4. Standard memberSecondSon
    Forum Saver
    In the Light
    Joined
    18 Dec '16
    Moves
    476
    04 Feb '19 20:44
    @bigdoggproblem said
    Nope.

    Warnings are threats when an intelligent being declares intent to cause harm if the warning isn't heeded.
    Like that dog face.
  5. Standard memberSecondSon
    Forum Saver
    In the Light
    Joined
    18 Dec '16
    Moves
    476
    04 Feb '19 20:47
    @fmf said
    Not all warnings are threats bit if the "warning" is that some kind of violence is going to be a perpetrated against someone and it is framed in terms of vengeance and wrath, then it's certainly a "threat" and attempted "coercion".
    Yeah! And if the one issuing the warning has the power and authority to carry out the intended consequences one had best heed the warning.
  6. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29885
    04 Feb '19 20:54
    @secondson said
    Yeah! And if the one issuing the warning has the power and authority to carry out the intended consequences one had best heed the warning.
    Only if one believes the threat is credible and real.
  7. Standard memberSecondSon
    Forum Saver
    In the Light
    Joined
    18 Dec '16
    Moves
    476
    04 Feb '19 21:42
    @fmf said
    Only if one believes the threat is credible and real.
    The one may not believe the threat is real, but if the threat is real that one would not be safe.
  8. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29885
    04 Feb '19 22:45
    @secondson said
    The one may not believe the threat is real, but if the threat is real that one would not be safe.
    Sounds like the ridiculous basis for the torturer god ideology.
  9. Standard memberSecondSon
    Forum Saver
    In the Light
    Joined
    18 Dec '16
    Moves
    476
    04 Feb '19 23:44
    @fmf said
    Sounds like the ridiculous basis for the torturer god ideology.
    But God has warned, and it's not a threat.
  10. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29885
    04 Feb '19 23:46
    @secondson said
    But God has warned, and it's not a threat.
    I said this: Not all warnings are threats bit if the "warning" is that some kind of violence is going to be a perpetrated against someone and it is framed in terms of vengeance and wrath, then it's certainly a "threat" and attempted "coercion".

    You said this: Yeah! And if the one issuing the warning has the power and authority to carry out the intended consequences one had best heed the warning.

    Make your mind up.
  11. SubscriberBigDoggProblem
    Just...the Dogg
    bigdogghouse.com/RHP
    Joined
    26 Nov '04
    Moves
    122774
    05 Feb '19 05:28
    @secondson said
    Like that dog face.
    Sure. Along with a guttural growl or two, most everyone understands the threat without the need for words!
  12. Stargazing
    Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    89260
    05 Feb '19 07:32
    @fmf said
    I said this: Not all warnings are threats bit if the "warning" is that some kind of violence is going to be a perpetrated against someone and it is framed in terms of vengeance and wrath, then it's certainly a "threat" and attempted "coercion".

    You said this: Yeah! And if the one issuing the warning has the power and authority to carry out the intended consequences one had best heed the warning.

    Make your mind up.
    Secondjosephw seems incaple of deciding if Jesus burns non-Christians alive for eternity or not.
  13. Stargazing
    Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    89260
    05 Feb '19 07:351 edit
    @sonship said
    Are all warnings to be taken as threats?
    Jesus will burn you alive for eternity if you don’t believe in him.... is a warning and a threat; it is not credible, it is not real, but it is nefarious nevertheless.
  14. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    9222
    05 Feb '19 09:11
    @BigDoggProblem

    Nope.


    I agree. All warnings of impending harm are not threats.


    Warnings are threats when an intelligent being declares intent to cause harm if the warning isn't heeded.


    God's warning of eternal punishment seems to me not to be given early in the Bible. The early warning in Genesis 3 is that man would surely die if he partook of a forbidden fruit called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

    There was warning that it was THERE.
    There was warning that it should not be partaken of.
    There was warning that the result of disobeying and eating would be harm - in the form of death.

    For this early instance I doon' think this underlying warning was a threat. But surely we can see the whole matter of Adam dying was bad, even something of a torment in some ways. Everything negative, gone wrong, gone corrupt, become spoiled, and rotting set in gradually until Adam returned to dust.

    Here is God giving indication of the harm's existence and His warning to avoid the harm.

    1.) The Harm's Existence -

    "And out of the ground Jehovah God caused to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food., as well as the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Gen. 2:9)


    2.) The Harm and Penalty of Disobedience

    " And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may eat freely, But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat; for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Gen. 2:16,17)


    This is probably the first divine warning from God to man.
    I don't think it constitutes an evil threat.

    I will go on in another post about another kind of warning approaching God's eternally punishing.
  15. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29885
    05 Feb '19 09:27
    @sonship said
    God's warning of eternal punishment seems to me not to be given early in the Bible.
    It's a threat of violent never-ending torture that you yourself have described as wrathful and vengeful.

    If it fails to turn non-believers into believers, due to there being no proof that the threat actually exists, what is the moral purpose of it in the case of non-believers?

    And if it failed to turn non-believers into believers before they die, what is the moral purpose of carrying out such perverse and violent never-ending torture in secret - in a way that means it has no deterrent or coercive effect?

    You are propagating a logical and moral mess about a threat the existence of which you cannot establish because you have not one scintilla of actual evidence.
Back to Top