Western Misconception of Reincarnation

@fmf said
Disbelief in your God figure does not constitute "evil". Save that kind of assertion for members of your religion.

It has no moral traction beyond that ~ especially when you Christians start up with the 'stupendous punishment for not having the same beliefs' I mentioned.

Whatever supernatural being that happens to appeal to your imagination ~ good for you ~ but it does no ...[text shortened]... ives [or indeed affect the reality in which they live] for believers in other Gods or non-believers.

There's an explanation for this in the St. Dionysius thread that is quite exhaustive and just perfect as a response to this, FMF, but I won't cut-copy-paste it here.

Moreover, it is important to understand that when we are discussing something philosophical common words can start taking on specialized meanings.

Go take a look.

You might be surprised at the depth of the argument.

If you choose to not go look & comment, or at least respond here with some sort of inkling of what the counter-argument is, I have no idea how to respond.

You're just posting responses to an argument you haven't read.

@philokalia said
You might be surprised at the depth of the argument.

I consider the new thread a dodge in terms of the simple moral question I asked you. Did you start it for me?

@philokalia said
You're just posting responses to an argument you haven't read.

What on Earth are you one about?

@philokalia said
There's an explanation for this in the St. Dionysius thread that is quite exhaustive and just perfect as a response to this, FMF

No there isn't any perfect response. Don't worry, I'll ask you the same question again in a few weeks when you once again say something glib and gaseous like "...it is in the realm of the revealed truth, right... It is taken on faith by people, or, in some cases, deduced by trains of thought in which God was concluded as existing and then conceived of as loving of His Creation or a dispenser of justice", which in no way creates a moral logic to explain the stupendous [and secret] punishment [for not having the same beliefs as you, no less] just as it does not create a credible threat of there being any such violence and cruelty awaiting anyone.

@fmf said
I consider the new thread a dodge in terms of the simple moral question I asked you. Did you start it for me?

I created it for everyone but it is highly pertinent because it deals with the idea of how evil is, and how it can be passive and generated simply through inaction and not fulfilling your purpose.

It has everything to do with how a person that does not believe in God can bring hell onto themselves.

But, it seems like you really do not want to discuss the topic at all.

Why not go over and then discuss it?

@fmf said
No there isn't any perfect response. Don't worry, I'll ask you the same question again in a few weeks when you once again say something glib and gaseous like "...it is in the realm of the revealed truth, right... It is taken on faith by people, or, in some cases, deduced by trains of thought in which God was concluded as existing and then conceived of as loving of His Creation or ...[text shortened]... s it does not create a credible threat of there being any such violence and cruelty awaiting anyone.

I accept your criticism.

Perhaps I need to be more clear in what I am communicating.

Do forgive me. ^^ You may grow in your patience and tolerance for others.

@philokalia said
It has everything to do with how a person that does not believe in God can bring hell onto themselves.

What "God"? What "Hell"? Look, you don't want to answer my question; I get it.

@philokalia said
Why not go over and then discuss it?

The other thread is just a slab of confirmation bias material for the consumption of fellow Christians for whom 'not believing' in their God figure is already defined in their thoughts and in their partisan outlook as being "evil". It is not a 'deep argument' for discourse with non-believers.

@fmf said
What "God"? What "Hell"? Look, you don't want to answer my question; I get it.

LOL, wait, did you just ask a question about hell and how it can be ethical...

And then when we started talking about it, you then denied their existence..?

What debate are you even trying to have here?

@fmf said
The other thread is just a slab of confirmation bias material for the consumption of fellow Christians for whom 'not believing' in their God figure is already defined in their thoughts and in their partisan outlook as being "evil". It is not a 'deep argument' for discourse with non-believers.

It's actually an explanation of a Christian philosophical position on this by St. Dionysius.

It's supposed to explain the theology behind these big, meaningful questions.

How wouldn't it be "biased" material? It's like if I criticized Karl Marx's philosophy for being too Marxist.

I feel like you've missed the point and don't even know how to engage the material because you don't consider it to be a valid category from the start.

@philokalia said
LOL, wait, did you just ask a question about hell and how it can be ethical...

How can you argue that it is morally coherent to a non-believer? The stuff on the other thread is for Christians.

What is the moral purpose of trying to coerce a non-believer with a non-credible and ludicrous threat?

What would be the moral purpose of carrying out the threat ~ in secret, no less ~ on a non-believer if it hadn't worked while they were alive and in a way that no other non-believer knows about?

It's just moral nonsense.

@philokalia said
How wouldn't it be "biased" material?

It is based on the notion that it is "evil" to not believe in your God figure.

@philokalia said
It's supposed to explain the theology behind these big, meaningful questions.

But it seems so parochial and manmade. It may appeal to your imagination or even make a kind of sense to you in the context of whatever you have experienced in your life, but it doesn't create any moral imperatives or any credible threats for anyone other than members of your religion.

@philokalia said
From the perspective of desiring proof, there will be no empirical proof. So it is not rational in an inductive sense.

But rather, it is in the realm of the revealed truth, right... It is taken on faith by people, or, in some cases, deduced by trains of thought in which God was concluded as existing and then conceived of as loving of His Creation or a dispenser of justice.

Probably doesn't qualify as empirical proof, but have read some intriguing accounts of people who recall and evidence past lives. (And I'm excluding the obviously bogus ones of people remembering being Napoleon or Joan of Arc).

@fmf said
How can you argue that it is morally coherent to a non-believer? The stuff on the other thread is for Christians.

What is the moral purpose of trying to coerce a non-believer with a non-credible and ludicrous threat?

What would be the moral purpose of carrying out the threat ~ in secret, no less ~ on a non-believer if it hadn't worked while they were alive and in a way that no other non-believer knows about?

It's just moral nonsense.

So, you absolutely refuse to go discuss how evil can be generated through complacency in a thread about St. Dionysius's view of evil, but you are absolutely committed to rambling on about hell & refusing to read a thread about my viewpoints in the thread I created entitled Western Misconceptions of Reincarnation.

If you want your off-topic bants to be covered here, the least you can do is acknowledge the points in the other thread.

Oh well. What can I do. If someone wants to "post as they see fit" and derail my thread while ignoring my thread that deals with the topic, I can't do much.