@sonship saidYou mean your torturer god ideology ~ the one you use "the conclusion of the Bible" to prop up? It's a "reason for rejoicing" for the 5,000,000,000 or so non-Christians around the world?
Thanks, up to this point, for demonstrating your vacuousness to present anything more a reason for rejoicing then the conclusion of the Bible.
@caljust saidSeems to me FMF hit a raw nerve there. [sonship] just can’t get over it!
Seems to me fmf hit a raw nerve there. He just can’t get over it!
Yes indeed. And it's not as if he can claim that he doesn't make comments about other people's personality and behaviour, so he can't try to hide behind the principles and standards that he applies to his own posting.
2 edits
@FMF
Ruffled feathers, raw nerves ...
Funny, for finding me the most joyless poster that you cannot stop reading my posts. Glutton for punishment or what ?
You mean your torturer god ideology ~ the one you use "the conclusion of the Bible" to prop up? It's a "reason for rejoicing" for the 5,000,000,000 or so non-Christians around the world?
I am not worried about non-Christians as much as ANTI-Christians.
I expect to be shocked at God's knowledge of everyone's circumstances.
And I expect to be shocked at how inexcusable the rationalizations of Christ rejectors will end up.
Putting hope in God's incompetence or eagerness to condemn as many as possible, I think are vain hopes which will amount to foolish notions for one to have had confidence in.
Trusting that these objections indicate Jesus Christ is not as morally or intellectually just and competent as you and therefore furnish reasons to reject the offer of salvation, will prove to have been fool-hearty assumptions.
Proverbs 21: 30 - "There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel that can avail against Jehovah."
1 edit
@caljust saidI think it's important to specify what we all mean by "fair". Is it "fair", as an, a game is fair if both sides have equal chances of winning? Or, is it "fair" as in, the outcome must be even for both parties?
There is no such thing as a “fair” society - even the most loving family cannot be totally fair.
Fairness would mean everybody has the same amount of everything - money, looks, brains. Totally impossible.
A society must be JUST, not fair. Equal treatment under the law.
Somebody once said “What is worse than the unequal treatment of equals, is the equal treatment of unequals.”
I personally prefer a society that is mostly "fair" with respect to opportunities available. Mainly, this means that people have the freedom to try their hand at various trades, forms of education, social relationships, and personal beliefs, so long as they're not hurting anyone.
"Fairness" of outcome is not always attainable. Some people are just better than others at some, or all, of these things. Some people are better at finding a fulfilling path through life, period. In most cases, it's not practical, or even desirable, to legislate everyone back to equality of outcome.
There are certain exceptions. There his a huge "wealth gap" in the world - a ever-smaller group of people control an ever-growing percentage of the world's wealth; that should be regulated against. Affirmative action has been a necessary evil to correct for institutional racial bias in the USA. No, the outcomes are never going to be equal, but large trends away from that direction ought to be reversed, if possible. Prolonged, dramatic inequality of outcomes leads to resentment, revolution, civil war, bloodshed, etc. often with the new system being no improvement on the old.
@bigdoggproblem saidNot sure what fmf had in mind when he launched this subject, but I must assume that it would have to deal with how our own personal choices can contribute to such a society.
I personally prefer a society that is mostly "fair" with respect to opportunities available. Mainly, this means that people have the freedom to try their hand at various trades, forms of education, social relationships, and personal beliefs, so long as they're not hurting anyone.
There are certain exceptions. There his a huge "wealth gap" in the world - a ever-small ...[text shortened]... t, revolution, civil war, bloodshed, etc. often with the new system being no improvement on the old.
The huge wealth gap you mention is an obvious concern. The super rich have secluded and ensconced themselves to such a degree (by controlling even the making of the rules) that it is difficult to see how that trend could ever be reversed.
@caljust said...and whether the degree to which our personal choices can be accommodated or tolerated by society is a measure of "fairness" and how this can be achieved.
Not sure what fmf had in mind when he launched this subject, but I must assume that it would have to deal with how our own personal choices can contribute to such a society.
2 edits
@sonship saidYour ideology is that people who don't believe there is "the offer of salvation" [as a kind of reward for believing there is "the offer of salvation"] deserve to be tormented in burning flames for eternity and it is a problem with your 'moral intellect'.
Trusting that these objections indicate Jesus Christ is not as morally or intellectually just and competent as you and therefore furnish reasons to reject the offer of salvation, will prove to have been fool-hearty assumptions.
Jesus has been dead for 2,000 years. Your ideology is your ideology, here and now, talking to me, and it is a manmade one that you must take personal responsibility for it if you choose to peddle it.
Your intellect is your intellect and ~ along with your integrity ~ it governs your ability to address what I put to you and to do so without using logical fallacies and superstitious assertions.
When you are not preaching to the choir, sonship, explaining-away your morally incoherent ideology by passing the buck to a mythological figure called "Jesus Christ" doesn't wash.