‘Eternal suffering’ is nonsensical

Originally posted by @fmf
We discussed your superstitious approach before. It has no moral traction with a non-believer, as you know. You know what my analysis is. If you believe you might end up getting burned forever by your god figure after you die for whatever reason you imagine - or that I might, for that matter - then that is your prerogative. Thanks for your opinion about what constitutes a moral justification.

God and Christianity has no traction with an unbeliever and as you know we discuss God and Christianity all the time. We haven't stopped discussing them because they have no traction with you. In fact you seem to bring them up all the time.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
God has no traction with an unbeliever and as you know we discuss God all the time.

I don't believe you have any information about a god or gods so I just discuss your ideology with you. You'll remember Dasa the fanatical Hindu. He thought Christians were, for all intents and purposes, atheists. He was a theist and superstitious, like you are. Do you believe his religious beliefs created any moral imperatives for people like you and me?

Originally posted by @fmf
I don't believe you have any information about a god or gods so I just discuss your ideology with you. You'll remember Dasa the fanatical Hindu. He thought Christians were, for all intents and purposes, atheists. He was a theist and superstitious, like you are. Do you believe his religious beliefs created any moral imperatives for people like you and me?

In a world where there is no ultimate truth, Dasa's views may be just as legitimate or illegitimate as yours and mine. If you are arguing from a position of no ultimate truth and you have nothing better to offer than Dasa you are frankly wasting everyone's time including your own. I on the other hand believe there has to be ultimate truth and if you would like to know I could tell you exactly why I believe Dasa's views make no sense using his own assumptions. I could even tell you why your beliefs make no sense to me using your own assumptions. Can you tell me why my views make no sense to you using my assumptions?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Can you tell me why my views make no sense to you using my assumptions?

I'll just stick with what I explained to you before, on more than one occasion, which unfortunately you just ignored. I don't need to type it out for you again.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I on the other hand believe there has to be ultimate truth and if you would like to know I could tell you exactly why I believe Dasa's views make no sense using his own assumptions.

Dasa believed there is an ultimate supernatural truth - like you do - and based his assertions about morality on that belief - like you do.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
From my perspective, in essence, it boils down to you thinking you are in a better position to make a moral judgement than your creator is without you being able to tell me why.

You're not offering a moral argument. All you're doing is professing a belief in a supernatural being that can apparently do whatever it wants to whoever it wants for whatever reason it wants, without any moral justification. You just declare it to be moral.

Burning non-believers alive is then vaunted as being the "perfect" and "ultimate" morality. This makes a mockery of all less-than-perfect morality and therefore deprives you of a coherent moral compass.

Fortunately, you actually get your moral code from the same source as me and all the rest of your fellow humans.

Originally posted by @fmf
You're not offering a moral argument. All you're doing is professing a belief in a supernatural being that can apparently do whatever it wants to whoever it wants for whatever reason it wants, without any moral justification. You just declare it to be moral.

Burning non-believers alive is then vaunted as being the "perfect" and "ultimate" morality. This mak ...[text shortened]... actually get your moral code from the same source as me and all the rest of your fellow humans.

Whenever you make a moral argument you evoke a moral law. When you evoke a moral law you have to posit a law giver. The moral law giver that you posit is either yourself (your own moral sensibilities) or some other human or government. I have yet to see you make any kind of argument as to why everyone should follow your or someone else's laws.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I have yet to see you make any kind of argument as to why everyone should follow your or someone else's laws.

This comment would suggest that you have simply ignored just about everything I've written about morality in my conversations with you.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Whenever you make a moral argument you evoke a moral law. When you evoke a moral law you have to posit a law giver.

Your superstitious/religious assertions do not create any moral imperatives beyond your own mind.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I have yet to see you make any kind of argument as to why everyone should follow your or someone else's laws.

Like you once said about your morals, I do not wish to impose my morals on anyone, aside perhaps from my children until they leave home.

Originally posted by @fmf
This comment would suggest that you have simply ignored just about everything I've written about morality in my conversations with you.

Either everyone is free to behave as they please or they aren’t. If they aren’t who has the right to tell them how they ought to behave? The government?

I predict another dodge.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Either everyone is free to behave as they please or they aren’t. If they aren’t who has the right to tell them how they ought to behave? The government?

I predict another dodge.

I think you're talking about laws here not morals. Laws can and often do have a moral underpinning, but you're getting morality and laws mixed up. Everyone is free to do as they please as long as they stay within the law. You must have met people who had moral standards different from yours - leading to not-illegal behaviour of which you disapprove. Well, you do have the right to tell them how they ought to behave. You can stop associating with them if that doesn't work. And if they break the law, you can tell the authorities.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I predict another dodge.

It's funny you should say this. A couple of months ago you asked me almost the exact same question ~ JS357 was involved in the conversation ~ and I took the time to write 2-3 posts in answer to it; you just blanked them out, I remember. You basically blanked out what JS357 was saying too. And yet here YOU are predicting it's ME who is perhaps going to dodge.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke

You like that sound of that? Well that's just the sound of the New Testament.

His mission was to get negative minds to gradually overcoming anger,

That Person who overcomes is Jesus. He overcame.
So God dispenses Jesus as life giving Spirit into those who receive Jesus. In speaking of His coming resurrection after His redemptive death, He said -

"Yet a little while and the world beholds Me no longer, but you behold Me; because I live, you also shall live." (John 14:19)

It means because He LIVES in resurrection, being joined TO Him in faith, we also shall live, and live overcoming.

jealousy and ignorance,

That too is the Overcoming, the unique Victor - Jesus.
That is a Person, a Person that God can cause to be OUR overcoming too.

He dispenses that Person in His "pneumatic" form as "life giving Spirit" into the receivers. Then THE Overcomer can cause them to "reign in life".

" ... much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ" (Rom.5:17)

and develop positive minds around love,

That positive mind is a living Person whom God can distribute into our inner being. That positive mind is a Person - Jesus. Believe me.

compassion and wisdom.

Yes. That compasion and wisdom is also a living Person - Christ.

The Apostle Paul says God has MADE ...Christ Wisdom to us. It means the living Person of Jesus can come into our hearts and mingle with our soul. This also means God is able to put men and women INTO ... INTO ... the resurrected and living Person Christ. This can be taken to the bank.

"But of Him [God] you are in Christ Jesus, who became wisdom to us from God: (1 Cor. 1:30a)

Notice, the wisdom here is of three components.
One aspect - towards our past.
The second aspect - towards the present.
The third aspect - towards the future.

Look again:

"But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became wisdom to us from God:
both righteousness and sanctification and redemption. "

This is the wisdom of Christ Himself made to the believer.

Towards the past - righteousness - we are completely justified from sins.

Towards the present - sanctification - we undergo the process of soul transformation by the Holy Spirit conforming us to the image of Christ. This is day by day, drop by drop, step by step, from one degree of likeness to the next. This is about the present and daily and ongoing.

Towards the future - redemption - this here means "the redemption of the body". It stands for transfiguration when the resurrection or rapture occurs at Christ's second coming.

Christ as the catalyst of these three aspects is "wisdom to us from God".

Finally, this is the Christians BOAST - Christ Himself.

" ... Christ Jesus, who became wisdom to us from God:

both righteousness and sanctification and redemption. That as it is written, He who boasts, let him boast in the Lord."

Originally posted by @sonship

Typo:
"judges" should have been written "judged"

" ... and scrolls were opened ... and the dead were [judged] [edited] by the things which were written in the scrolls, according to their works."