What's your philosophy for Hell? Hell only?

[Skavau]

But didn't think about?

No, I did.

Because you thought you could be bizarrely sensible any way?

"Bizarrely sensible"

Amusing way of writing. You make my points for me every time you reply.

Even after I told you that typing more was either laughable, expensive or an excuse?

I don't even know what this question means. Is it rhetorical? You told me typing more was laughable, expensive or an excuse? What does that even mean? Do you mean you typing or me typing? What do you mean by "expensive"? How can anything done on here be labelled "expensive"?

And now I am supposed to call "Hell" something else? Because you have given me "no philosophy on Hell"? Which is the subject? You are criticizing?

I don't believe in hell. My commentary on hell is thus limited to what the people I'm discussing with believe it to be. I assume it as a matter of common ground.

 

[Rajni]

Truths are truths.

If you want to compare them to riddles, think of puzzles or word games, but don't come to God with the complaint you didn't understand, what you didn't give time to consider.

Believe me, I don't equate this discussion with you to one with God. You also seem to be making the misguided assumption that I don't communicate with Him already, and that this communication isn't precisely why I don't buy the hell-concept people are selling.

The point is, whatever it is you're trying to accomplish here isn't working, exactly. However, depending on how important you feel your message is, you will -- wisely -- adjust your approach accordingly, so that you'll be more easily understood.

 

[Gottservant]

No, I did.


"Bizarrely sensible"

Amusing way of writing. You make my points for me every time you reply.

[...]

I don't believe in hell. My commentary on hell is thus limited to what the people I'm discussing with believe it to be. I assume it as a matter of common ground.

I will reply, later.

You have begun to understand something, that God may elaborate.

I'm interested at this stage, to see what it is, without rushing.

 

[Gottservant]

Believe me, I don't equate this discussion with you to one with God. You also seem to be making the misguided assumption that I don't communicate with Him already, and that this communication isn't precisely why I don't buy the hell-concept people are selling.

The point is, whatever it is you're trying to accomplish here isn't working, exactly. However, depending on how important you feel your message is, you will -- wisely -- adjust your approach accordingly, so that you'll be more easily understood.

I find this lazy.

The Lord may deign to explain to you further why this is the case, at a later time, though not necessarily through me.

 

[Rajni]

I find this lazy.

Thank you.

 

[Rajni]

I don't even know what this question means. Is it rhetorical? You told me typing more was laughable, expensive or an excuse? What does that even mean? Do you mean you typing or me typing? What do you mean by "expensive"? How can anything done on here be labelled "expensive"?

It just occurred to me that there might be a language-barrier-thing going on here. I tend to forget (as I just did this evening) that not everyone on here has English as their first language; not only are they tackling some complicated topics, but they're doing so in another (equally complicated) language (English).

Which is pretty awesome, actually.

Just thought I'd toss that out there for consideration.

Personally, I back off when I suspect language barriers as it seems I wind up going in circles. But kudos to those who persevere in spite of it!

 

[Skavau]

It just occurred to me that there might be a language-barrier-thing going on here. I tend to forget (as I just did this evening) that not everyone on here has English as their first language; not only are they tackling some complicated topics, but they're doing so in another (equally complicated) language (English).

Which is pretty awesome, actually.

Just thought I'd toss that out there for consideration.

Personally, I back off when I suspect language barriers as it seems I wind up going in circles. But kudos to those who persevere in spite of it!

I did actually briefly consider it, but his location is Australia and I don't think that Australian dialect is so surreal to me (especially in a topic where dialect takes a backseat) that it is not understandable.

Of course there is the possibility that he is in fact, living in Australia but speaks English as a second language. His text does seem occasionally to have been put through a translator yet also seems not. His sentences do, for the most part make grammatical sense (their content being the prevailing confusion) which leads me to suggest that he's a recipient or architect of a very specific ideas within Christianity which seem to include within it a way of speaking.

 

[Gracchus]

I am surely not alone here in not knowing what Gottservant is talking about. Right?

I don't think even Gottservant knows what he is talking about. He makes no sense. It is very sad.

 

[Gottservant]

"Bizarrely sensible"

Amusing way of writing. You make my points for me every time you reply.

I don't believe in hell. My commentary on hell is thus limited to what the people I'm discussing with believe it to be. I assume it as a matter of common ground.

Ok. you quoted me without context. Minus one point.

Second. you complimented me that I was listening (able to make your point every time). Plus two points.

Third. You ANSWERED THE QUESTION with the words ([paraphrased] "I make a commentary on Hell" (as if to say "that's all, just a commentary"). Plus three points.

You now have four points.

Since you have four points, allow me to make one You say "it is a matter of what people believe it to be" when you have already said "I don't believe it", so you imply you believe in people, but are not one yourself. How (I'm not saying you can't "How") do you distinguish yourself from the Devil?

 

[Gottservant]

Thank you.

"Thank you" is not a response to laziness, without work. Smiley faces are not work, two smiley faces (one waving) is not payment.

I remind you that never claimed to be God (which I am easily able to remember you accusing me of, even after a day, don't ask me for forgiveness, ask God).

 

[Gottservant]

Personally, I back off when I suspect language barriers as it seems I wind up going in circles. But kudos to those who persevere in spite of it!

Hell is a language barrier?

Not sure if you are asking that yourself (but the subject of this thread is Philosophies of Hell, not language barriers, directly).

 

[Gottservant]

His text does seem occasionally to have been put through a translator yet also seems not.

You are speculating whether I am man or machine, it's not going to work.

His sentences do, for the most part make grammatical sense (their content being the prevailing confusion) which leads me to suggest that he's a recipient or architect of a very specific ideas within Christianity which seem to include within it a way of speaking.

You are paranoid. Possibly loose in thought.

Content alone does not create confusion, if there is belief.

I suggest you try harder to suppress the meaning of what I am saying and not take wild stabs at my title, which you will never guess, unless Wisdom or the Holy Spirit reveals it to you.

You cannot suppress the meaning of what I am saying, without quoting something specific in an original context (OF YOUR OWN).

 

[Gottservant]

I don't think even Gottservant knows what he is talking about. He makes no sense. It is very sad.

Speech is not a function of knowing what you are talking about, but believing what you are saying.

 

[Skavau]

You are speculating whether I am man or machine, it's not going to work.

No I was speculating on whether or not you were using a translator.

You are paranoid. Possibly loose in thought.

Paranoia implies irrational fear. I am not scared remotely.

Content alone does not create confusion, if there is belief.

Yes it does. You're basically just insisting that your means of communicating are beyond everyone else who says that they do not understand you.

I suggest you try harder to suppress the meaning of what I am saying and not take wild stabs at my title, which you will never guess, unless Wisdom or the Holy Spirit reveals it to you.

You want me to suppress the meaning of what you're saying?

Don't you mean understand?

You cannot suppress the meaning of what I am saying, without quoting something specific in an original context (OF YOUR OWN).

The thing is, no-one knows what you're saying.

 

[Skavau]

Ok. you quoted me without context. Minus one point.

What does "quoting you without context" mean? Do you mean I didn't include the link of the post embedded in the quote? I do that all the time when responding extract by extract. I am too lazy to do it properly normally.

Second. you complimented me that I was listening (able to make your point every time). Plus two points.

"Complimented me that I was listening"?

Huh? I don't think I complimented you specifically or did so based on your listening abilities.

Third. You ANSWERED THE QUESTION with the words ([paraphrased] "I make a commentary on Hell" (as if to say "that's all, just a commentary"). Plus three points.

Uh, okay?

Since you have four points, allow me to make one You say "it is a matter of what people believe it to be" when you have already said "I don't believe it", so you imply you believe in people, but are not one yourself.

This has to be one of the most strangest interpretations of anything I've said ever. I said that to me, hell does not exist. There's no evidence for it. When I thus talk on hell I do so on the basis of what the person I'm talking to thinks about hell.

Tl;dr People exist, they have beliefs. Hell doesn't (or no reason to assume it does).

How (I'm not saying you can't "How") do you distinguish yourself from the Devil?

The statement in brackets "I'm not saying you can't "How"" makes no sense.

I don't believe in a 'devil' figure. Why would I? I'm an atheist.

 

[Rajni]

Personally, I back off when I suspect language barriers as it seems I wind up going in circles.

Hell is a language barrier? Not sure if you are asking that yourself (but the subject of this thread is Philosophies of Hell, not language barriers, directly).

I rest my case.
Commencing my backing of off.

 

[Gottservant]

I rest my case.
Commencing my backing of off.

It is not an offence to leave Cheala,

only to attempt to ascend to God,

when you are not in the Son of God.

 

[Gottservant]

What does "quoting you without context" mean?

You are not reinterpretting anything I say in your own context. Does the Devil call that lazy? I believe he does.

Huh? I don't think I complimented you specifically or did so based on your listening abilities.

A fool retracts a compliment, a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] can't guess what it ever was

This [that I cannot rely on people and not believe in people, and still be a person] has to be one of the most strangest interpretations of anything I've said ever.

No one denying the faith of another, has the strength to call himself anything.

If you want to criticize people (which refusing their beliefs is) you can only do it, by denying your own humanity.

The statement in brackets "I'm not saying you can't "How"" makes no sense.

I left out a comma, between "can't" and ""How"" and you voided the whole sentence because of six words that lacked a pause. Then commented on it. And now expect me to apologize, as if it is the first most grievous mistake I have ever made in my life. So that you can have your "sense" back (which for some reason you think is giving yours to me).

I don't believe in a 'devil' figure. Why would I? I'm an atheist.

You have to defend you Atheist God, somehow.

 

[Skavau]

You are not reinterpretting anything I say in your own context. Does the Devil call that lazy? I believe he does.

I'm interpreting what you say and trying to guess from what you say what you mean. I don't care if that is good enough for you.

A fool retracts a compliment, a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] can't guess what it ever was

You're welcome to compliment me if you like. I'll still query it if I think it is strange or inaccurate.

No one denying the faith of another, has the strength to call himself anything.

I don't deny the faith of another. I scrutinise their faith, perhaps and rebuke efforts to extend their faith to me. That isn't "denying" anything.

If you want to criticize people (which refusing their beliefs is) you can only do it, by denying your own humanity.

Nonsense. Criticising people does not mean you necessarily deny your own humanity. Does not follow.

I left out a comma, between "can't" and ""How"" and you voided the whole sentence because of six words that lacked a pause.

"I'm not saying you can't, "How""

That still makes no sense.

Then commented on it. And now expect me to apologize, as if it is the first most grievous mistake I have ever made in my life.

Where did I expect you to apologise? Try reading what I say and not what you expect I think. If you think I have hidden expectations on a topic, ask me.

So that you can have your "sense" back (which for some reason you think is giving yours to me).

I have no idea what this means in relation to anything.

You have to defend you Atheist God, somehow.

There's no such thing as an "Atheist God".

 

[Dave Ellis]

You have to defend you Atheist God, somehow.

You do understand the idea of an "Atheist God" is self-contradictory, right?

We don't believe any Gods exist... likewise, we also don't believe any "evil" gods exist either (i.e. Satan). Atheists do not worship Satan, we think he is just a character in a book. We don't think he's any more real than Santa Claus, Zeus or Yahweh.

So it's impossible to defend an "Atheist God". If someone thinks there is some sort of God that exists, they by definition are not an Atheist.