@kellyjay saidIt's not that I am "ignoring" anything, KellyJay. Indeed, I listen to you going on and on and on about it day in, day out. It's just that it comes across as morally incoherent and therefore not credible.
No, the one point in this is your overlooking more than likely on purpose is God on a cross. The only people who can receive the grace of Jesus Christ are bad people those who owe up to God they need His grace. You don’t want it, ignore it, presume to have it without Christ stay in the condemnation that their sins demand.
To me, you have simply latched on to a mythology that gives you consolation. True to its misanthropic and narcissistic essence, you believe that you yourself are immune from the darkly ludicrous fate supposedly awaiting people who don't share your beliefs.
@sonship saidI don't think that something that is the most depraved and demented violence ever dredged up from the darkest depths of the human imagination is evidence that it is a "divinely inspired", even if it is then attributed to a creator entity that has been anthropomorphized to a preposterous degree.
You are not SUPPOSE to be able to think of anything worse that not being reconciled to God. That is the point. To not be reconciled to God is the worst possible thing in the universe.
17 May 22
@divegeester saidIf you find yourself outside of Christ's grace, it's the wrath of God that is true
Do you think I am at risk of being being tortured with liquid fire by Jesus, for not believing in being tortured in liquid fire?
for everyone.
17 May 22
1 edit
@fmf saidDo you have something that tells you why everything is here, even a theory that
It's not that I am "ignoring" anything, KellyJay. Indeed, I listen to you going on and on and on about it day in, day out. It's just that it comes across as morally incoherent and therefore not credible.
To me, you have simply latched on to a mythology that gives you consolation. True to its misanthropic and narcissistic essence, you believe that you yourself are immune from the darkly ludicrous fate supposedly awaiting people who don't share your beliefs.
can be backed up with a cause?
17 May 22
@kellyjay saidMy theories are [1] that there is a creator entity that made everything ["a cause"], and [2] the universe has always existed ["no cause"], but my overarching realization [as I would put it, because it seems patently obvious to me] is that none of us knows "why [or how] everything is here".
Do you have something that tells you why everything is here, even a theory that
can be backed up with a cause?
I don't expect theology to ever explain the origin of the universe. I think the nearest we get to understanding the nature of a creator entity, if there is one, [and this is putting it very succinctly] is the laws of physics.
17 May 22
@divegeester saidUnless you are right with the Lord, the rest doesn't matter.
Do you think I am at risk of being being tortured with liquid fire by Jesus, for not believing in being tortured in liquid fire?
17 May 22
@fmf saidThe law of {anything} is simply what we have come to expect, that doesn't not
My theories are [1] that there is a creator entity that made everything ["a cause"], and [2] the universe has always existed ["no cause"], but my overarching realization [as I would put it, because it seems patently obvious to me] is that none of us knows "why [or how] everything is here".
I don't expect theology to ever explain the origin of the universe. I think the nearest ...[text shortened]... a creator entity, if there is one, [and this is putting it very succinctly] is the laws of physics.
address what started it all.
17 May 22
@kellyjay saidI answered your question. You asked me to tell you what I think about the question of "what started it all". If you are not particularly interested, so be it. I was not seeking to "address what started it all" in a way that would be to your personal satisfaction.
The law of {anything} is simply what we have come to expect, that doesn't not
address what started it all.
17 May 22
2 edits
@divegeester saidHell is a reality; you can make fun of it, and anyone who acknowledges it will not
I’m aware of that in terms of “in Christ” thanks.
So you don’t think I am at risk of being being tortured with liquid fire by Jesus, simply for not believing in being tortured in liquid fire?
change things. You can do a lot of things here, all of which, in the end, you will give
an account for; they will either be brought under the blood of Christ, or you will
answer for them directly.
17 May 22
@fmf saidIf you don't know how it started, and are not interested, then the only thing you
I answered your question. You asked me to tell you what I think about the question of "what started it all". If you are not particularly interested, so be it. I was not seeking to "address what started it all" in a way that would be to your personal satisfaction.
are doing is assigning values, making up all the whys, and putting up definitions
without a complete view of the whole. You rule out some and castrate a few while
elevating others. You fill in your gaps in knowledge with your imagination with what
you like, not even entertaining possibilities; you are making all the pieces fit without
any idea what the whole picture looks like while refusing to entertain there could
be a whole picture we can see while looking at all of the pieces.
17 May 22
@kellyjay saidIf you don't know how it started [>1], and are not interested [>2], then the only thing you are doing is assigning values [>3], making up all the whys [>4], and putting up definitions [>5] without a complete view of the whole [>6].
If you don't know how it started, and are not interested, then the only thing you
are doing is assigning values, making up all the whys, and putting up definitions
without a complete view of the whole.
[1] Neither of us knows "how it started", or if it did.
[2] I have not said I am "not interested"; hey now, KellyJay, just because [2a] neither of us knows and I admit it, and [2b] I don't find your ancient Hebrew mythology-based speculative 'gap fill' persuasive, does not mean I am "not interested". It's interesting to see how you feel the need to throw these little disingenuous things into what you type.
[3] As human beings, because it is our nature as sentient and communal creatures, we assign values to things and this becomes the basis of our each and every moral compass; you assign values too; you synthesize stuff from your human environment [like all your religious stuff, for example], process it using your character and personhood, and end up with values assigned.
[4] You "make up" the "whys" too; everyone finds their own "whos" and "whys" and "what fors". You obviously feel very, very strongly that I should adopt the same ones as you have.
[5] Rather like No.[3], we use definitions in order to make communication - and therefore interaction - possible.
[6] If you have found a version of "a complete view of the whole" that floats your spiritual and philosophical boat, then so be it.
Note: I've gone to all this trouble to sift through what you put to me and I have answered it point by point. I wonder if you will engage it or whether you will just blow it off and make some generic assertions about your faith. We shall see.
17 May 22
@kellyjay saidWhat have I "ruled out"?
You rule out some and castrate a few while
elevating others. You fill in your gaps in knowledge with your imagination with what
you like, not even entertaining possibilities; you are making all the pieces fit without
any idea what the whole picture looks like while refusing to entertain there could
be a whole picture we can see while looking at all of the pieces.
What have I "castrated"?
What have I "elevated"?
What possibilities am I not "entertaining"?
How have I "filled gaps" with my imagination?
You appear to be projecting all manner of stuff onto me in a very disingenuous way.