EVIL!!!!!!!!

[Immanuel Can]

Elisha was another great one BTW, Elijah's disciple, and less hot headed/angry.

I always thought he was even a tougher cookie than Elijah. There are actually twice as many miracles attributed to him as to his mentor.

...stay in hell forever like me and a few billion others - denied freewill to repent from that place to find your God.

You seem to think it's of great significance whether or not people in "Hell" perpetually have free will.

I indeed do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I view it as a core-moral theme, which Christians negate nor even think about. Though they affirm our soul's are immortal, they do not ponder the those soul's circumstances after death.

Oh, I'm certain that they do. They just don't think it makes much difference what somebody who has already decided he wants no association with God decides after that point.

To miss the biggest issue of life is to miss everything.

But nobody's there for any reason BUT their free will,

Correct, their freewill per their actions upon our Earth as mortals.

Indeed so.

and? you point?

Just this: they chose what they got. They got what they chose. What's to complain about?

As for me, I would argue that perhaps they still have free will...but if they do, they use it to stay where they are. People who choose perdition instead of God are not behaving as particularly rational beings, and I wouldn't expect them to change their minds. I'd rather expect them to be obdurate.

I've already said if i find myself still alive after death (and in Hell for being an Athiest). I will repent and convert to your Faith.

And yet, there is no mention of any such provision in the Bible. So I wouldn't wait and count on that. Better to take the opportunity you know you have, then to take a gamble on an opportunity you have no reason to think you will have at all.

Or to put it in the words of Jesus Christ, "What shall it profit a man, if he gains the whole world, but loses his own soul; or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?"

your Faith champions a God of Love and Mercy more than anything else yes?

No, not more than anything else. But yes, a God of love and mercy.

Also, a God of justice, of holiness, of truth, of righteousness, of power, of wisdom, of grace...and so on.

A God that denies Repentance and/or Salvation from Hell by one in Hell that repents to your God, is denying His Love and Mercy.

yes?

No. In such a case, it's been offered and refused. Something else I believe about God: He is a God who does not force those who reject Him to accept Him. And there are natural consequences to such a choice. God pleads with them, provides for them, offers them another way, and has even sent His Son to save them. But if, after all that, they simply don't want any part of relationship with God, He honours their free will, and accords them what they have accorded themselves. And they? Well, they are self-condemned. As Jesus said,

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness ]instead of light because their deeds were evil" (John 3: 16-19)

We must not think freedom is a trivial matter, or that choice is of no consequence. Absent those things, there is no such thing as relationship. And for a God of love, relationship is the goal...not forced compliance.

[gaffo]

I like conversing with BTW, and you have a mind, and why i like to converse.

Elisha was another great one BTW, Elijah's disciple, and less hot headed/angry.

I always thought he was even a tougher cookie than Elijah. There are actually twice as many miracles attributed to him as to his mentor.

yes he restored to life the dead tween girl.

As for me, I would argue that perhaps they still have free will...but if they do, they use it to stay where they are. People who choose perdition instead of God are not behaving as particularly rational beings, and I wouldn't expect them to change their minds. I'd rather expect them to be obdurate.

I've already said if i find myself still alive after death (and in Hell for being an Athiest). I will repent and convert to your Faith.

And yet, there is no mention of any such provision in the Bible.

and so your bible is lacking on this matter. Apcalypse of Peter touches on the subject (I'm told - not read it myself) - but it is not included in our canon. ;-/.

So I wouldn't wait and count on that. Better to take the opportunity you know you have, then to take a gamble on an opportunity you have no reason to think you will have at all.

Understood, so you are saying i should out of fear accept your god because a moral concept i find objectionable (no one in Hell can repent and find God and be Saved (becuase - your God's love is limited only the living?, your God removes freewill and so rempentance from souls in hell? or just because your bible does not address the issue?) is irrellivent to your God. instead i should just "accept him" now while i alive on Earth out of fear his mercy does not include to those in Hell.

ok, understood. I convert out of empiricism, not fear, and so will go to Hell FOREVER - for it seems your God's mercy is limited only to mortals.

- I don't know the mind of your God, just exprapolating your view if Him and his "mercy".

Or to put it in the words of Jesus Christ, "What shall it profit a man, if he gains the whole world, but loses his own soul; or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?"

FYI, i'm no the poor side and always valued the ascetic life, thinking and just sitting, rather than working my ass off for things and a big house.

so i'm "not of this world" generally speaking. I do think in most cases "less is more".

take this as your shall.

your Faith champions a God of Love and Mercy more than anything else yes?

No, not more than anything else. But yes, a God of love and mercy.

Also, a God of justice, of holiness, of truth, of righteousness, of power, of wisdom, of grace...and so on.

ok good, you mention other great virtues! so talk to me!

per your God which of those virtues to you think your God value most? and why so?

welcome discussion on the nature of your God (or your view of His nature).

A God that denies Repentance and/or Salvation from Hell by one in Hell that repents to your God, is denying His Love and Mercy.

yes?

No. In such a case, it's been offered and refused.

So your God offers "mercy" not Mercy to those that call to Him.

and "love" instead of Love.

understood.

Something else I believe about God: He is a God who does not force those who reject Him to accept Him.

and why should He?

and yet He is a god that "forces those who accept Him from Hell to reject Him"?

understood.

And there are natural consequences to such a choice. God pleads with them,

I we all have immortal souls, and so all with such reside on Earth 0.00000000000000001 percent of that soul's "life", why would said actions in that small modicum be with anything good or ill relative to the 99.99999999999999999 timeline of the soul outside of "this mortal life"?

it wouldn't!

provides for them, offers them another way, and has even sent His Son to save them.

yes, i've heard.

and will i hear them from Hell? will they hear me?

yes? no?

if no why not? is your God and his son's love too limited to offer me salvation from Hell? will they hear me and laugh? instead of save me from Hell?

if so why so?

But if, after all that, they simply don't want any part of relationship with God, He honours their free will, and accords them what they have accorded themselves. And they? Well, they are self-condemned.

noted, self condemned via an immortal soul that did shitty works during 0.0000000000000000000001 time that soul existed. and the rest of the action of the soul good or bad (the other 99.99999999999999) is just ignored by your God and his son.

As Jesus said,

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness ]instead of light because their deeds were evil" (John 3: 16-19)

nice words, but to clarify, "John" said that not Jesus.

We must not think freedom is a trivial matter, or that choice is of no consequence. Absent those things, there is no such thing as relationship. And for a God of love, relationship is the goal...not forced compliance.

agreed nothing trival about freedom - and many have died to defend it (in many lands)

[Dubious]

Thanks for the thorough response. As you surmised up-thread, I don't agree with you (on the nature and scope of the conscience). You describe it as a (refine-able) product of communal process while, I, as I say, see it as unwavering compass, intrinsic to each individual, pointing to a consistent truth.

I could never see conscience as an unwavering compass. Even conscience isn't that perfect although its field of awareness is far wider than it used to be. Truth as interpreted by humans is also in flux. What may have been accepted as truth for generations is, more often than not, renounced by a later one.

At the risk of being too simplistic: I, for example, I see personhood as intrinsic (Dub is a person even if everyone sez otherwise) cuz that's where my conscience (compass pointing true north) leads me. You, on the other hand, might see personhood as only bestowed (Henry is only a person cuz his tribe/community/nation accept him as person; he has no intrinsic quality of personhood) cuz your conscience (product of on-going communal process) sez so.

If that's what you think then you've misunderstood just about everything I said. I'm not disputing personhood. Hitler was a person as was St. Francis and even Jesus. We're all persons from the best of us to the worst.

We're on opposite sides of a great gash in the earth, extending from horizon to horizon. Not only is no bridge across possible, but neither of us would, it seems, walk across such a bridge if it existed.

Yes we are on opposite sides and feel you may have more in common with IC than with me. But there's nothing wrong with being an occasional tourist in someone else's mental territory; it's easy to leave anytime.

For me writing here is nothing more a casual mental exercise. What people think in any such encounter is of zero concern and arguing with them is simply a way of keeping whatever writing and analytical skills I still may have from eroding too much especially so after not having read anything in English for a long time. I'm much more interested in trying to manage another language more easily and to communicate better in that one.

So, thanks for the conversation and Happy New Year!

[henry quirk]

"If that's what you think then you've misunderstood just about everything I said."

Nah, I get what you're sayin'. Personhood was merely a possible example, not a solid fact, of the difference between us, but let's examine personhood for a bit:

You say...

I'm not disputing personhood. Hitler was a person as was St. Francis and even Jesus. We're all persons from the best of us to the worst.

I'm curious: why are these folks persons? And, looping back to my 'person or meat?' thread, when did they become persons?

#

"you may have more in common with IC than with me"

Some things, yeah, but we, he and me, differ on some critical points (summed up, wrapped up nice with a bow: he's a christian theist and I'm a destined for hell deist...at best, I'm Mannie's disreputable cousin from the wrong side of the tracks).

[Immanuel Can]

I'm Mannie's disreputable cousin from the wrong side of the tracks).

Yeah, but he makes good moonshine, so I cut him some slack.

[Dubious]

Nah, I get what you're sayin'. Personhood was merely a possible example, not a solid fact, of the difference between us, but let's examine personhood for a bit:

You say...

I'm not disputing personhood. Hitler was a person as was St. Francis and even Jesus. We're all persons from the best of us to the worst.

I'm curious: why are these folks persons? And, looping back to my 'person or meat?' thread, when did they become persons?

You’re the one who defined personhood as intrinsic whatever that specifically means so why ask me?

Personhood has been defined in many ways starting even before the Greeks; but there is one generality that can’t be disputed, it revolves around people and all the qualities humans may have. It’s therefore of no interest to me how anyone defines personhood since it can be defined in all kinds of ways. Each person’s personhood is distinctive so however you define it , I have no argument with.

>>>

"you may have more in common with IC than with me"

Some things, yeah, but we, he and me, differ on some critical points (summed up, wrapped up nice with a bow: he's a christian theist and I'm a destined for hell deist...at best, I'm Mannie's disreputable cousin from the wrong side of the tracks).

How warmly condescending of you! But if there’s only nature regardless of whether there’s a god in the rear of it, I expect you, IC and everyone who ever lived to be permanent residents of the Before shortly to become the After of you Inbetween. They’ll be no little Jesus to save one's dried-out diminutive soul since he’s in the same interim little dinghy which forever races toward oblivion.

[henry quirk]

"You’re the one who defined personhood as intrinsic whatever that specifically means so why ask me?"

Cuz I'm curious about how you define person.

You say 'there is one generality that can’t be disputed, it revolves around people and all the qualities humans may have', but history overflows with examples of individuals and groups being classified as 'other', as 'subhuman', as 'nonhuman' despite having all the qualities (whatever those are) humans may have.

As for me: yeah, I think personhood is intrinsic, but then I'm just a poorly educated throwback who believes he has, is, a soul. You, educated modern atheist that you are, don't share my view. Yet you say you don't dispute personhood, you say, 'We're all persons from the best of us to the worst.'

So: why are you and me persons?

[henry quirk]

I'm Mannie's disreputable cousin from the wrong side of the tracks).

Yeah, but he makes good moonshine, so I cut him some slack.

If Christianity is true: all the still juice in the world won't save my keister come Judgement, Mannie.

[BardoXV]

I'm Mannie's disreputable cousin from the wrong side of the tracks).

Yeah, but he makes good moonshine, so I cut him some slack.

If Christianity is true: all the still juice in the world won't save my keister come Judgement, Mannie.

But drink enough 'still juice' and you won't care where you end up, unless the moonshine doesn't affect your soul. Still I look forward to meeting up with you and mannie in the afterlife wherever we end up. We can toast with some of that moonshine.

[henry quirk]

Yeah, but he makes good moonshine, so I cut him some slack.

If Christianity is true: all the still juice in the world won't save my keister come Judgement, Mannie.

But drink enough 'still juice' and you won't care where you end up, unless the moonshine doesn't affect your soul. Still I look forward to meeting up with you and mannie in the afterlife wherever we end up. We can toast with some of that moonshine.

I'd like that...

[Immanuel Can]

If Christianity is true: all the still juice in the world won't save my keister come Judgement, Mannie.

But drink enough 'still juice' and you won't care where you end up, unless the moonshine doesn't affect your soul. Still I look forward to meeting up with you and mannie in the afterlife wherever we end up. We can toast with some of that moonshine.

I'd like that...

I'd be proud to quaff a pint with either or both of you anytime.

[Dubious]

"You’re the one who defined personhood as intrinsic whatever that specifically means so why ask me?"

Cuz I'm curious about how you define person.

You say 'there is one generality that can’t be disputed, it revolves around people and all the qualities humans may have', but history overflows with examples of individuals and groups being classified as 'other', as 'subhuman', as 'nonhuman' despite having all the qualities (whatever those are) humans may have.

Why is this so bloody complicated for you? Are we supposed to take the word of some group or person that the other group or person is subhuman? Human nature covers the gamut from the gross to the grand often within the same person. The most potent way to perpetrate an action against someone is to first dehumanise or at least denigrate them thus justifying the action not unlike ostracising atheism to uphold the inviolable dogmas of theism.

As for me: yeah, I think personhood is intrinsic, but then I'm just a poorly educated throwback who believes he has, is, a soul. You, educated modern atheist that you are, don't share my view. Yet you say you don't dispute personhood, you say, 'We're all persons from the best of us to the worst.'

Simply saying personhood is intrinsic means absolutely nothing. It simply states that there is a quality which distinctly denotes personhood or human exceptionalism. However you may define yourself, good on you. It’s your life; you decide how exceptional you are; and if you think you have a soul just because you were born human, fine, go dance with it!

[henry quirk]

"Why is this so bloody complicated for you?"

It's not.

Anyway: thanks for answering my questions.

[Immanuel Can]

"Why is this so bloody complicated for you?"

It's not.

Anyway: thanks for answering my questions.

True story, Henry:

I know a guy who used to teach school. And he had a slide show of pictures of animals in utero, mid pregnancy.

His (teenage) students would get all excited figuring out which embryo was which. They'd shout out, "It's an elephant," "It's a leopard," and "It's a dolphin," and so on. Because you could see right away from each embryo what sort of creature it was.

His last slide was a picture of a human child in utero. And everybody always said, "It's a human."

"Are you sure?" he would ask, "Couldn't it just be a cluster of cells?"

"No, they'd insist: that's a baby." They always knew.

Even the children know. It takes full grown adults to be so perverse and dishonest as to deny what their eyes plainly tell them, and even a kid can figure out instantly.

[henry quirk]

t takes full grown adults to be so perverse and dishonest as to deny what their eyes plainly tell them, and even a kid can figure out instantly.

Yep.

-----

Dub,

Just one last question: Why are you a person?