Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proof

@FMF

I am interested in morality. I think the torturer god ideology is a kind of nonsensical black hole in terms of morality.

But to the athiest morality is an illusion. At best an expediency for the herd to survive.

As long as you protest about moral crookedness there must be a straight line of morality against which you can measure what is crooked.

But that is what you are denying - an ultimate Moral ought prescribing Being. You are trying to slap God on the face but cannot reach His face unless you sit on God's lap.

Look, you protest "Why can't I win at rejecting God?"

Reject God forever you can. But do so and win at it you will not have.
The unreconciled perpetual rebel has to lose.

Your protest is that "It is unjust that I rebel against the ultimate moral being and lose. I should be able to do so and win at it."

Apparently, we can have our rebellion forever if we choose.
We cannot have our eternal rebellion and WIN too.
God has ordained that you lose.

The rebel will go with the great leader of all rebellion and share his miserable destiny - he looses. And the follower in his repository, in his grand collection of followers, loses with him.

But they will have the dubious victory of knowing that they didn't come under God. They can have their cake. They cannot have it and enjoy eating it too.

To me it ONLY makes sense if there is such a thing as ultimate Goodness. I don't have to like it. I just believe it. I trust the One who taught of it and gave Himself up to reconcile us to God.

This is now all repetition. You've seen me write this before.

@fmf said
You are pretending not to have read my posts.

Here's the thing though, we are judged by our desire to have communion with God and also on concept of whether or not we have repented for our sins. There's multiple levels to these things.

If you don't want to discuss all of the aspects of it and instead focus on one aspect you aren't actually having an honest discussion about the ethics and morality of hell.

@philokalia said
So you dislike it when questions are repetitive? You might want to talk to your boy Dive about that one.

I guess you would endorse the idea that people shouldn't have to repeat themselves on the forum, right?

I don't think it serves you well to pretend not to know what I mean by the word "secret" in this context. And here you are, second post in a row, using your quibble to sidestep what I mean by the word "secret" in this context.

@sonship said
@FMF

I am interested in morality. I think the torturer god ideology is a kind of nonsensical black hole in terms of morality.

But to the athiest morality is an illusion. At best an expediency for the herd to survive.

As long as you protest about moral crookedness there must be a straight line of morality against which you can measure what is crooke ...[text shortened]... imself up to reconcile us to God.

This is now all repetition. You've seen me write this before.

We have talked about morality before. It's no more or less an illusion for a religionist as it is an atheist. It's supplied by "nurture". It is a set of standards and sensibilities that one absorbs from one's human environment, whether it be religious literature or values and mores unrelated to religion.

@fmf said
I don't think it serves you well to pretend not to know what I mean by the word "secret" in this context. And here you are, second post in a row, using your quibble to sidestep what I mean by the word "secret" in this context.

But what would really constitute a secret?

If somebody said I would be punished by the owner of an abandoned house for doing something to the house, and I did not believe that such an owner of the house existed, and then I was subsequently punished by the owner as he said that I would be punished for doing such a deed, but I really later claimed that it was a secret punishment?

It's not the best way to use the word Secret.

@fmf said
I don't think it serves you well to pretend not to know what I mean by the word "secret" in this context. And here you are, second post in a row, using your quibble to sidestep what I mean by the word "secret" in this context.

It's also true that I have sometimes stated people's positions wrong here. You've witnessed that. I'm just a mortal man. I like to give people the opportunity to explain their own beliefs so I don't get them wrong.

@philokalia said
generally speaking, it's not proven because God wants us to be able to walk independently, and live freely.

I addressed it before with a pertinent observation and question but you blanked it out, as did Suzianne.

@philokalia said
But what would really constitute a secret?

If somebody said I would be punished by the owner of an abandoned house for doing something to the house, and I did not believe that such an owner of the house existed, and then I was subsequently punished by the owner as he said that I would be punished for doing such a deed, but I really later claimed that it was a secret punishment?

It's not the best way to use the word Secret.

I think it's ok to use it in the way I do.

@philokalia said
If somebody said I would be punished by the owner of an abandoned house for doing something to the house, and I did not believe that such an owner of the house existed, and then I was subsequently punished by the owner as he said that I would be punished for doing such a deed, but I really later claimed that it was a secret punishment?

Another talking-to-a-weakminded 'Imagine what I am saying were true, why would you not agree that it were true' type analogy/thought exercise. Try it on people who already believe the same things as you.

@fmf said
I addressed it before with a pertinent observation and question but you blanked it out, as did Suzianne.

Oh, so you don't want to talk about? You want to bring up the topic but you don't want to actually address anything about the topic.

The discussion is supposed to be limited just to you attacking sonship, not about anybody potentially attacking your position talking about how you have inconsistencies.

Or did I misinterpret something?

@fmf said
Another talking-to-a-weakminded 'Imagine what I am saying were true, why would you not agree that it were true' type analogy/thought exercise. Try it on people who already believe the same things as you.

Oh, we're all weak minded?

Not stronk in the brains like you, FMF?

Is that what you're going for here?

@philokalia said
Here's the thing though, we are judged by our desire to have communion with God and also on concept of whether or not we have repented for our sins. There's multiple levels to these things.

If you don't want to discuss all of the aspects of it and instead focus on one aspect you aren't actually having an honest discussion about the ethics and morality of hell.

"Honest discussion"? So you are going to blunder on pretending not to know whether I believe in there being such things as transgressions agains a supernatural being's will even though you know full well that I I don't believe any supernatural being has revealed its will?

@philokalia said
Oh, we're all weak minded?

If the kind of trite analogies you come out with have worked on you in your adult life, so be it.

@fmf said
"Honest discussion"? So you are going to blunder on pretending not to know whether I believe in there being such things as transgressions agains a supernatural being's will even though you know full well that I I don't believe any supernatural being has revealed its will?

Oh, of course I imagine you do not believe in sin.

It was something of a rhetorical question, but it required an answer, and it did succeed in eliciting that attitude we all love.

@fmf said
If the kind of trite analogies you come out with have worked on you in your adult life, so be it.

LOL, OK.

Does it make you better to call strangers on the internet 'weak-minded' because you don't like their analogies?

Analogies that you seem to never really overcome either, I add.