If God promised an eternity of suffering ...

[Sanoy]

I see. That is not what I believe the Buddha taught, IMO.

Instead, it advocates a process of continual growth towards the highest goal (nibbana). An example from mundane life would be how we as adults abandon many of the pleasures we've used to enjoy as children. A child can argue that we are "abandoning life" as he perceives it; for example, when we give up playing with toy dinosaurs to take up the higher pleasure of reading and learning. In the same way, a Buddhist, in the practice of the Eightfold Path, continues his journey beyond what normal adults would consider the ordinary joys of "life" towards far more sublime joys, towards the end of the Path in the highest bliss of all, nibbana.

Is nibbana different from Nirvana? For Christianity I would say it is both. It is the pursuit of our Spirit towards greater things above this world, as well as a right relationship with this world. We are put here to image God on high, perfect in Spirit, to the world below. We are not to abandon this world, but to fulfill it.

 

[ananda]

Is nibbana different from Nirvana?

They are similar. Nibbana is a Pali word which specifically points to the Theravada Buddhist understanding of the final goal. Nirvana is a Sanskrit word which usually refers to the Mahayana or Jain idea of the final goal.

For Christianity I would say it is both. It is the pursuit of our Spirit towards greater things above this world, as well as a right relationship with this world. We are put here to image God on high, perfect in Spirit, to the world below. We are not to abandon this world, but to fulfill it.

How do you "fulfill" "this world"?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I want to stay on topic, which is your argument, the very thing you kept saying no one could address. Ironically, now it is the rebuttal that is "being avoided". Till next time then.

You could've told me that then. You could've just omitted the accusation. It is extremely rude to make accusations and then refuse to substantiate them.

As for the argument, I addressed your counterpoint and you said you're not an ECT person - whatever that means.

Let's make a few things clear here about the topic.

First, Christianity is fundamentally dishonorable. The primary concern is to accept a reward that you do not deserve, while dodging punishment that you do deserve, all on the back of someone who was innocent. You should simply accept full responsibility for your sins, shouldn't you? Wouldn't that be the honorable thing to do, rather than muddy Christ's honor by placing your sins upon him?

Second, God would not be evil for merely giving you what you deserve. Consider Romans 9:11-15. God whimsically gives mercy to one and wrath to another. That's his prerogative if we indeed all deserve wrath.

Please confirm that you agree with everything stated here, as I believe I've drafted a rational case. If I'm in error, I would appreciate it if you explain why without removing half of what I said. Thanks.

 

[Sanoy]

You could've told me that then. You could've just omitted the accusation. It is extremely rude to make accusations and then refuse to substantiate them.

As for the argument, I addressed your counterpoint and you said you're not an ECT person - whatever that means.

Let's make a few things clear here about the topic.

First, Christianity is fundamentally dishonorable. The primary concern is to accept a reward that you do not deserve, while dodging punishment that you do deserve, all on the back of someone who was innocent. You should simply accept full responsibility for your sins, shouldn't you? Wouldn't that be the honorable thing to do, rather than muddy Christ's honor by placing your sins upon him?

Second, God would not be evil for merely giving you what you deserve. Consider Romans 9:11-15. God whimsically gives mercy to one and wrath to another. That's his prerogative if we indeed all deserve wrath.

Please confirm that you agree with everything stated here, as I believe I've drafted a rational case. If I'm in error, I would appreciate it if you explain why without removing half of what I said. Thanks.

It wasn't an accusation, it was an intervention, that failed. Nothing more is worth me saying.

If you didn't know what ECT means why not ask before asserting it wasn't addressed. It means eternal conscious torment, which is the theological position your reply was using. I don't believe in ECT. We can move on to other things when you concede, or steelman, your prior objection. As it stands P1 is false by equivocation, and your counterpoint misdirected.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

It wasn't an accusation, it was an intervention, that failed. Nothing more is worth me saying.

If you didn't know what ECT means why not ask before asserting it wasn't addressed. It means eternal conscious torment, which is the theological position your reply was using. I don't believe in ECT. We can move on to other things when you concede, or steelman, your prior objection. As it stands P1 is false by equivocation, and your counterpoint misdirected.

Do you believe that you are worthy of eternal life in heaven? If yes, then what did Jesus die for? If no, then could you explain how you would be honorable in accepting something you didn't earn?

 

[Sanoy]

Do you believe that you are worthy of eternal life in heaven? If yes, then what did Jesus die for? If no, then could you explain how you would be honorable in accepting something you didn't earn?

I feel I was clear. We can move on to other things when you either concede or steelman your prior argument.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I feel I was clear. We can move on to other things when you either concede or steelman your prior argument.

That's what I just did. I removed ECT. At this point it's obvious that nothing will satisfy you.

 

[Sanoy]

That's what I just did. I removed ECT. At this point it's obvious that nothing will satisfy you.

You have a faulty premise in your syllogism - P1. All you have done is ask me questions rather than steelman the premise. Do you concede it or will you steelman it? Asking questions is not steelmanning or conceding. We can proceed to this question when the present issue is genuinely conceded or successful.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You have a faulty premise in your syllogism - P1. All you have done is ask me questions rather than steelman the premise. Do you concede it or will you steelman it? Asking questions is not steelmanning or conceding. We can proceed to this question when the present issue is genuinely conceded or successful.

1. God has free will
2. God is not compelled to offer his grace to a Christian who asks for it
3. Therefore, there is a possibility that a Christian will not receive his grace


Nothing in there is referring to ECT. You aren't even following the conversation.

 

[Sanoy]

1. God has free will
2. God is not compelled to offer his grace to a Christian who asks for it
3. Therefore, there is a possibility that a Christian will not receive his grace


Nothing in there is referring to ECT. You aren't even following the conversation.

As I said P1 equivocates (#100). To which you claimed...

As for the flaw in my argument, again, I stated that we all deserve eternal hellfire and therefore God is not acting evil or against his nature to pass such judgement upon us. You've failed to address that as well.

...was a counterpoint. It is neither a counterpoint, relevant to me, or a repair of your problem in P1. Either steelman your syllogism, or genuinely concede it, then we will move forward.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

As I said P1 equivocates (#100). To which you claimed...
...was a counterpoint. It is neither a counterpoint, relevant to me, or a repair of your problem in P1. Either steelman your syllogism, or genuinely concede it, then we will move forward.

God has the free will to grant us grace or not. I presume that to you grace is the granting of eternal life as opposed to annihilation. Simply replacing "ECT" with "annihilation" in everything I've said would suffice to make you happy. You just don't want to be happy. Please accept this, move on, and give a legitimate response, or else we can cease indefinitely.

 

[Sanoy]

God has the free will to grant us grace or not. I presume that to you grace is the granting of eternal life as opposed to annihilation. Simply replacing "ECT" with "annihilation" in everything I've said would suffice to make you happy. You just don't want to be happy. Please accept this, move on, and give a legitimate response, or else we can cease indefinitely.

Okay, after reading and rereading it appears you are steelmanning your syllogism with this.

1. God has free will to grant us grace or not
2. God is not compelled to offer his grace to a Christian who asks for it
3. Therefore, there is a possibility that a Christian will not receive his grace.

Let's leave out the matter of ECT and Annihilation because it's not in the syllogism and just confusing to bring up in regards to the syllogism.

This has the same issue as the former. Recall my initial correction....
1. God has free will, but a more simple nature. He does not have two nature's to act upon as we do, doing good and evil.
2. God promised to forgive our sins.
3. God cannot act outside His nature which is to fulfill His promises.
C. God will fulfill His promises.

So we are back to either steelmanning it again or genuinely conceding it. If the latter I will proceed to take up the two points in #124.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Okay, after reading and rereading it appears you are steelmanning your syllogism with this.

1. God has free will to grant us grace or not
2. God is not compelled to offer his grace to a Christian who asks for it
3. Therefore, there is a possibility that a Christian will not receive his grace.

Let's leave out the matter of ECT and Annihilation because it's not in the syllogism and just confusing to bring up in regards to the syllogism.

This has the same issue as the former. Recall my initial correction....
1. God has free will, but a more simple nature. He does not have two nature's to act upon as we do, doing good and evil.
2. God promised to forgive our sins.
3. God cannot act outside His nature which is to fulfill His promises.
C. God will fulfill His promises.

So we are back to either steelmanning it again or genuinely conceding it. If the latter I will proceed to take up the two points in #124.

1. God has free will, but a more simple nature. He does not have two nature's to act upon as we do, doing good and evil.

Why do you bring up good and evil in this premise and then never address it again? This premise does not lead to your conclusion. So I fail to see how it is an improvement on my first premise. Further, you have yet to explain how it would be evil for God to judge us justly. Or do you think you deserve salvation?

2. God promised to forgive our sins.

This is vague. You are already in the minority with regards to soteriology. You've not made it clear what does or does not constitute salvation for a person. Do you not agree that there are many self-professed Christians who will not attain salvation?

3. God cannot act outside His nature which is to fulfill His promises.

How is it that God cannot act outside of his nature? He took on human form, including, presumably, human nature.

 

[Sanoy]

1. God has free will, but a more simple nature. He does not have two nature's to act upon as we do, doing good and evil.

Why do you bring up good and evil in this premise and then never address it again? This premise does not lead to your conclusion. So I fail to see how it is an improvement on my first premise. Further, you have yet to explain how it would be evil for God to judge us justly. Or do you think you deserve salvation?

2. God promised to forgive our sins.

This is vague. You are already in the minority with regards to soteriology. You've not made it clear what does or does not constitute salvation for a person. Do you not agree that there are many self-professed Christians who will not attain salvation?

3. God cannot act outside His nature which is to fulfill His promises.

How is it that God cannot act outside of his nature? He took on human form, including, presumably, human nature.

To rebut an argument you don't actually have to make up objections to every premise. A successful blow to a single premise is all that is required to break up the sequitur formation of a deduction. Additionally, attacking my counter argument without steelmanning your own doesn't fix your own argument because P1 of your argument remains an equivocation.

1.P3 from P1 + P2

2.P2 is clear. God promised to forgive our sins. Soteriology has nothing to do with ECT vs Annihilation. The argument doesn't rely on what does or does not constitute salvation, so this is nothing more than a red herring.

3. P3 from P1 +P2

 

[Nihilist Virus]

To rebut an argument you don't actually have to make up objections to every premise. A successful blow to a single premise is all that is required to break up the sequitur formation of a deduction. Additionally, attacking my counter argument without steelmanning your own doesn't fix your own argument because P1 of your argument remains an equivocation.

1.P3 from P1 + P2

2.P2 is clear. God promised to forgive our sins. Soteriology has nothing to do with ECT vs Annihilation. The argument doesn't rely on what does or does not constitute salvation, so this is nothing more than a red herring.

3. P3 from P1 +P2

Well I asked questions which you are now dodging.

 

[Sanoy]

Well I asked questions which you are now dodging.

I did respond to your 3 questions, if you don't understand something I can clarify. But you also need to steelman or concede your syllogism because your P1 is still in the position of equivocation. Attacking my formulation has nothing to do with that task.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I did respond to your 3 questions, if you don't understand something I can clarify. But you also need to steelman or concede your syllogism because your P1 is still in the position of equivocation. Attacking my formulation has nothing to do with that task.

Let's start with the most basic thing then. Do you believe that you deserve salvation?

 

[Tinker Grey]

steelman

To strawman is to misrepresent your interlocutor's position in such a way as that it is easy to tear down. To steelman is represent your interlocutor's position at least such that he/she'd approve or even better so he/she's impressed.

One doesn't steelman one's own argument. You might strengthen it or fortify it, but not steelman it.

 

[Sanoy]

Let's start with the most basic thing then. Do you believe that you deserve salvation?

I am waiting for you to repair, or concede. Your syllogism equivocates, your question has nothing to do with repairing that equivocation.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I am waiting for you to repair, or concede. Your syllogism equivocates, your question has nothing to do with repairing that equivocation.

The fallacy of equivocation involves misuse of a definition. I never did that.

If I were equivocating, I would be saying, "God has free will (definition A)" when I really mean, "God has free will (definition B)". I would then be exploiting this confusion to push my point through.

You absolutely never provided an alternative definition. Instead, you are clarifying by saying, "God has free will, BUT (clarification)."

So please, stop hammering the same incorrect point over and over. If you accuse me of equivocating, you need to at least provide a definition. Do you understand?