Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Would the three of you like to put your heads together and debate me in a brand new thread? I am sure that you all could build a case for your position, whatever that position might be....
Private message each other, compile an Opening Remark that is no more than 15,000 words and in the opening remark, state your argument and anything else you wish to defend with whatever evidence, proof, expert testimony, syllogisms, etc. etc. you wish to make use of. Build the case from whatever view you wish to argue from and then I will submit my opening remarks.
If the three of you are not willing or unable to do this, then fine. The refusal will be noted. But it seems to me the three of you would be anxious to show how fallacious my arguments have been and prove yourself to be justified in your views. Maybe you all don't really care. Maybe it is a game to you?
Formal debate is going to be the grounds in which my position is defended. Not tit for tat, back and forth, unstructured arguing which is far too prevalent in internet forums.
If you agree to debate, know that I am not going to help you do your research for you. I am not going to answer questions that you should already know. This is a philosophy forum. If you have'nt even the most basic understanding of its most rudimentary concepts, then you should not be pretending that you do.
I look forward to hearing from the three of you.
By the way, you can choose whatever topic your heart's desire. Just title the Opening Remark with a working thesis statement. You have 24 hours to reply with a yes or no, after that, I will pursue the matter no further.
Thank you.
What quatona said.
If you won't answer questions put to you in an open forum, I do not see why you would behave differently in what you offer as a 'debate'.
Maybe you will reconsider. Maybe quatona will change his mind and you along with him and Archaeopteryx can make a case for yourselves. I wait with baited breath......the clock is ticking....
The correct term is "bated breath". In this case, it may be appropriate, in that it appears you are attempting to bait us into taking on the burden of evidence, in justifying our views.
I see no need to make a case for myself. You are the one claiming "knowledge of the truth", not me.
Support your claim, or abdicate.
The correct term is "bated breath". In this case, it may be appropriate, in that it appears you are attempting to bait us into taking on the burden of evidence, in justifying our views.
I see no need to make a case for myself. You are the one claiming "knowledge of the truth", not me.
Support your claim, or abdicate.
Skavau requires no assistance from me, your emotional semi-nonsensical tirades notwithstanding.Hehehehe, lol I thought it might be spelled that way lol!
Skavau was the one who said that God was contemptible. Im just asking for him to state his case in a coherent, logical, well thought out, concise manner and to refrain from emotional semi-nonsensical tirades replete with misconstruals of the biblical doctrine of hell.
Maybe you and quatona can help him?
Skavau requires no assistance from me, your emotional semi-nonsensical tirades notwithstanding.
Support your claim of "knowledge of the truth", or abdicate.
Is this a game to you?
I have already clarified the issue with your offer of debate.You're the one moving goalposts Davian, not me.
Since you have yet to accept the invitation to debate I have been continually extending to you, I shall have to call it like I see it.
I've done that repeatedly. Here on this thread and elsewhere.Hehehehe, lol I thought it might be spelled that way lol!
Skavau was the one who said that God was contemptible. Im just asking for him to state his case in a coherent, logical, well thought out, concise manner and to refrain from emotional semi-nonsensical tirades replete with misconstruals of the biblical doctrine of hell.
Maybe you and quatona can help him?
There's some content here.And in place of this "stuff" which you have totally rejected, what have you accepted as being the truth regarding:
1. The final state of humans once they die
2. The inherent depravity of humans
3. Ultimate Justice
Since you reject the biblical teachings of Hell, sin, and final judgement, what do you maintain is the truth regarding the preceding three concepts?
For myself, in the process of making my Beloved God my only reality in life, all of that other stuff you point to just gets into the way. All they are, are concepts. They are not God.And in place of this "stuff" which you have totally rejected, what have you accepted as being the truth regarding:
1. The final state of humans once they die
2. The inherent depravity of humans
3. Ultimate Justice
Since you reject the biblical teachings of Hell, sin, and final judgement, what do you maintain is the truth regarding the preceding three concepts?
[*]It is worth pointing out this. I am an anti-theist. I would reject salvation even if I believed it was true. This, though does not mean that I somehow choose to go to hell. That would be the circumstances God set down. That I may reject heaven would not mean that I would embrace hell. The choice is false.
[/LIST]
Do you view hell as eternal torment as well as the absence of God's goodness and generosity?As I understand it, Christianity would contend that God is infinitely merciful and will allow all non-believers to enter into relationship with him and live on his planet with him and with his people for eternity. This is through his Son Jesus. That's not the problem. The problem is that many, like yourself, do not want to live with God on his planet with his people.
This is all that we mean by hell -- the absence of God, his goodness and generosity, and his people. Sadly, many refuse this today and will continue to refuse it for all eternity. I have no idea why this would be.
Do you view hell as eternal torment as well as the absence of God's goodness and generosity?
Why wouldn't God project some goodness and generosity even on those who don't wish to live with him? Rejecting his offer, or not believing his offer is not the same as rejecting those ideals.I view them as one and the same. The absence of God's goodness and generosity is torment. Admittedly I do view the torment as more passive than active.
Why wouldn't God project some goodness and generosity even on those who don't wish to live with him? Rejecting his offer, or not believing his offer is not the same as rejecting those ideals.
I'm sure if Jesus were still alive and he materialize before some non-Christians they might accept his offer. That would be a real presentation of the offer. Someone telling me "this book I have said that Jesus is God , he did all this supernatural stuff, and if you accept him you will be saved" isn't really a good presentation of such an offer even if the offer did in fact exist. I don't find it that convincing and I really have no direct volitional power over what I find convincing were I could trick myself into being convinced for the sake of some pascals wager type thing.
Have you seen him face to face? I mean, how do you know this?A day will come when you will see him face to face. I hope, as you say, that in that case you will accept his offer.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?