|
Post by Admin on Feb 15, 2024 1:02:57 GMT
ps. Nobody cares about your neurotic "notations," but the hypocrisy is always entertaining. Don't forget the "ad hom" and the "QED". Nope, still not an answer to my question(s) to be found.... Assuming you don't do it on purpose, have you ever noticed your tendency to draw your own conclusions literally no matter what you're being told? You ask, I answer, then you "note evasion" - ad nauseam. I learned long ago that it's impossible to reason with unreasonable people, but I still try every now and then. Thanks for reminding me to stop doing that.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Feb 15, 2024 22:29:49 GMT
Film flaneur Quote:The relevance here is this: if God knows what ought to work to bring many more to a conviction of His existence and therefore to salvation, and yet doesn't, isn't he a hypocrite for not permitting a lot of people to be saved through an effective informed choice, when that He tell us is best for all? Unquote.
No, ”he” is not. Not according to Dogma. Hence my post to Rodney farber (about op and the literary value of the bible in the theoretical question thread-!!!)) Quote :Indeed, but litterature is not all there is as it comes to religion and god. Documents give the answear to film flaneur question. I studied these in law university and usually don’t instruct without postulating à fee, but here’s a historical hint : 16th Council of Carthage in 418, approved by Pope Zosimus, as it comes to the god of christians. Unquote.
To be more precise, ”If...then” ”god” is a question that requires creatures to judge ... a god according to creatures standards. That is not humble. To say the least. (Not even argumenting about the value of anything beginning with ”if” : one can’t actually do that, it calls for suspension of disbelief as the op in that thread requested. You claim ”god is not your copilot” or quote it, that is a référence to atheism or agnosticism, so please, do not be à hypocrite yourself : when you did not want to suspend said disbelief and jested or worse, you might have left the thread alone, to begin with... I replied to you that you asked why god would not force anyone into salvation and that the answear was free will. A god that forces people is not much better than H. Potter’s villain. Gods have their own rules and free will is a kind of humility requested from à powerfull god in the treatment of the human creature. US.*
Novastar6 You wrote about charity, which is a major duty as it comes to pro life. Quote : But the other side of it is, it's fine to argue FOR things...but people who say they 'care', aren't always known for putting their money where their mouth is. They're all in favor of something, as long as someone else has to foot the bill. And this is why, in this aspect anyway, I am not a hypocrite. People love to say pro-lifers don't actually do anything to help, etc., I would be a much richer person if that were true. Every year I buy $100-200 worth of toys for the Christmas drive, the food bank, every month, money to St. Jude's every October at every gas station taking donations, every Jerry's Kids drive, every local medical fundraiser jar at every business, every library reading program/schoolbook fundraiser. During last year's school supply drive I bought $60 worth of phonics cards and K-3rd work books for reading, spelling, vocabulary, math and science. How many 'pro-choicers' who claim they care about the ALREADY BORN children, would care to say the same? Unquote.
Well, yes. But it’s not done on the ground of charity but in solidum. People pays taxes. These taxes fund places where unwed mothers children are taken care of when their mothers are working, and those who need it are provided with a minimum income, aside from social welfare for children needs. And social housing. And help to go to school, in’order to learn’how to fend for themselves. Or that was an idéal some time ago. But... there is the people I wrote about who want girls and boys to be afraid of themselves, of their bodies, and of fun. And mostly about life. And they do not want them to be free. They want them to be bound with charity, and it’s no présentation. Nothing is given for free in a charitable way. On the other hand, in the solidum way The rich that do not want to pay taxes can and does not. It calls for a lot of money, and the rich is... rich. That is history.
Besides, women have the right not to want to start families. Quote : They offer free birth control, do they offer free anything to women actually starting their families? Unquote. No. It does not work that way.
Quote :It just seems so ironic the same political side that justifies abortion because of all the suffering kids and women in this country, also said it was racist to put them first.
What does that mean ?!
Suddenly they can take the back of the line along with Veterans and the homeless, so people who aren't even citizens can come in, get free food, prepaid credit cards and live in hotel rooms for free. I wonder why American women and children weren't worthy of that same aid?
I don’t know, but you seem to think the kind of existence you describe is something to look forward to... I gather you mean the bachelor women who aborted. Well, when there is charity in order for people not to die on the curb, citizenship is not what request it, is it? When one is charitable towards one’s neibourgh, it is not because the neibourg is a citizen. It’s because there is love in the heart of the charitable one.
Thanks for caring, novastar6. But no thanks for asking for others to be afraid of life. That’s too high à price to pay.
*I am not sure your question from that other thread and my own quotation of my reply from that thread are not against the rules. I suspect this is not Nice to other posters because they can’t follow the line of the argument, in all objectivity. That is being rude to them. Mama is getting dissapointed at you, Child. But not sore.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 17, 2024 20:03:02 GMT
Nope, still not an answer to my question(s) to be found.... Assuming you don't do it on purpose, have you ever noticed your tendency to draw your own conclusions literally no matter what you're being told? You ask, I answer, then you "note evasion" - ad nauseam. I learned long ago that it's impossible to reason with unreasonable people, but I still try every now and then. Thanks for reminding me to stop doing that. Nope, still no answer here..
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 17, 2024 20:41:16 GMT
"if God knows what ought to work to bring many more to a conviction of His existence and therefore to salvation, and yet doesn't, isn't he a hypocrite for not permitting a lot of people to be saved through an effective informed choice, when that He tell us is best for all?" No, ”he” is not. Not according to Dogma. Documents give the answear (sic) to film flaneur question. Let's see some them then. Also what dogma says is not necessarily logical or correct. A reading of church history and the often painful ends of those who on occasion supported the wrong dogma would show that. And I studied under Antony Flew at Reading - so what? . I am afraid you will need to be a little more specific. We don't all have your evident academic talents. This has already been raised by Admin. To say that an atheist cannot consider hypotheticals is ridiculous, otherwise the religious would otherwise always be debating themselves in an echo chamber. The faithful 'don't believe' in atheism and yet are happy to debate with non-believers. You will also note that nowhere in this thread do I assert that God does not exist, merely that I have my suspicions. (As a soft atheist it would hardly be otherwise). That does not effect the worth of my asking. A reading of my original question merely reflects that, while I am addressing a purported deity, scepticism will inevitably and naturally creep in when it does not ever raise its head above the parapet. In this sense it was rhetorical. Ultimately it would be better to address my query rather any supposed cheek in asking it, thus addressing me and not what I say - a fallacy for which there is a name. This has also been addressed and is a strawman. I am not wondering why God does not force everyone to believe in him (even if that was possible). That word does not appear in my original question. I ask to be, along with many other potentials, simply convinced by further information- a different emphasis entirely. Why must it be all or nothing? I am asking why, if God knows what ought to work to persuade many more of His existence then why, given that it is their benefit, and that it is supposed His expressed will, He does not just move to do it. It is quite a reasonable ask and one that your Jesus recognises in John 4:48 while Jeremiah 33:3 says God will answer us . As also noted before, it is notable how many believers automatically assume that their God would only force people than just enable them to use their free will through informed decision making. Is that what one might reasonably expect from a god who supposedly values free will? My suspicion is that the faithful, unable to answer such a sensible question face-on, seek to make of it that which it is not. (Or argue as, lately, that making a decisive choice about whether God exists would be a bad thing since it would, er, remove the possibility for the choice just made!) Shall we leave polytheism for another day? However my question can be addressed to any claimed deity that suits. (And who says a god has to have rules?) If only this purported God could persuade many of his existence from the git-go then, eh? I see free will more as a form of intellectual independence, but maybe that is just me.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 17, 2024 21:33:05 GMT
You ask, I answer, then you "note evasion" - ad nauseam. Nope, still no answer here.. QED
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 17, 2024 21:42:44 GMT
Nope, still no answer here.. QED Something we can agree on.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Feb 18, 2024 1:56:23 GMT
"if God knows what ought to work to bring many more to a conviction of His existence and therefore to salvation, and yet doesn't, isn't he a hypocrite for not permitting a lot of people to be saved through an effective informed choice, when that He tell us is best for all?" No, ”he” is not. Not according to Dogma. Documents give the answear (sic) to film flaneur question. Let's see some them then. Also what dogma says is not necessarily logical or correct. A reading of church history and the often painful ends of those who on occasion supported the wrong dogma would show that. And I studied under Antony Flew at Reading - so what? . I am afraid you will need to be a little more specific. We don't all have your evident academic talents. This has already been raised by Admin. To say that an atheist cannot consider hypotheticals is ridiculous, otherwise the religious would otherwise always be debating themselves in an echo chamber. The faithful 'don't believe' in atheism and yet are happy to debate with non-believers. You will also note that nowhere in this thread do I assert that God does not exist, merely that I have my suspicions. (As a soft atheist it would hardly be otherwise). That does not effect the worth of my asking. A reading of my original question merely reflects that, while I am addressing a purported deity, scepticism will inevitably and naturally creep in when it does not ever raise its head above the parapet. In this sense it was rhetorical. Ultimately it would be better to address my query rather any supposed cheek in asking it, thus addressing me and not what I say - a fallacy for which there is a name. This has also been addressed and is a strawman. I am not wondering why God does not force everyone to believe in him (even if that was possible). That word does not appear in my original question. I ask to be, along with many other potentials, simply convinced by further information- a different emphasis entirely. Why must it be all or nothing? I am asking why, if God knows what ought to work to persuade many more of His existence then why, given that it is their benefit, and that it is supposed His expressed will, He does not just move to do it. It is quite a reasonable ask and one that your Jesus recognises in John 4:48 while Jeremiah 33:3 says God will answer us . As also noted before, it is notable how many believers automatically assume that their God would only force people than just enable them to use their free will through informed decision making. Is that what one might reasonably expect from a god who supposedly values free will? My suspicion is that the faithful, unable to answer such a sensible question face-on, seek to make of it that which it is not. (Or argue as, lately, that making a decisive choice about whether God exists would be a bad thing since it would, er, remove the possibility for the choice just made!) Shall we leave polytheism for another day? However my question can be addressed to any claimed deity that suits. (And who says a god has to have rules?) If only this purported God could persuade many of his existence from the git-go then, eh? I see free will more as a form of intellectual independence, but maybe that is just me. 🛋🥰 imdb2.freeforums.net/thread/329682/theoretical-questionTheoretical question
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 18, 2024 5:07:49 GMT
Something we can agree on. How unfortunate.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Feb 18, 2024 16:53:41 GMT
OK Film flaneur you are right on one point at last my posting is full of typos and wrong english spelling and grammar. Thanks for putting my nose into it. I still am blind in one eye only. Please have a bit of patience. Either I lost eyesight and you’ll get rid of my posts (but I’ll still love you) either screen reading shall stop being difficult after a few eyesight training sessions and I shall try to post good proofread english posts. Thanks again. 💋
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 18, 2024 17:51:13 GMT
Something we can agree on. How unfortunate. I'm sure you won't let it bother you. Any answer to my question yet?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 18, 2024 17:53:05 GMT
OK Film flaneur you are right on one point at last my posting is full of typos and wrong english spelling and grammar. Thanks for putting my nose into it. I still am blind in one eye only. Please have a bit of patience. Either I lost eyesight and you’ll get rid of my posts (but I’ll still love you) either screen reading shall stop being difficult after a few eyesight training sessions and I shall try to post good proofread english posts. Thanks again. 💋 I'm sorry to hear about your handicap, naturally. On this thread however it has been more the case that there are none so blind who will not see.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 18, 2024 20:32:57 GMT
Let's see some them then. Also what dogma says is not necessarily logical or correct. A reading of church history and the often painful ends of those who on occasion supported the wrong dogma would show that. And I studied under Antony Flew at Reading - so what? . I am afraid you will need to be a little more specific. We don't all have your evident academic talents. This has already been raised by Admin. To say that an atheist cannot consider hypotheticals is ridiculous, otherwise the religious would otherwise always be debating themselves in an echo chamber. The faithful 'don't believe' in atheism and yet are happy to debate with non-believers. You will also note that nowhere in this thread do I assert that God does not exist, merely that I have my suspicions. (As a soft atheist it would hardly be otherwise). That does not effect the worth of my asking. A reading of my original question merely reflects that, while I am addressing a purported deity, scepticism will inevitably and naturally creep in when it does not ever raise its head above the parapet. In this sense it was rhetorical. Ultimately it would be better to address my query rather any supposed cheek in asking it, thus addressing me and not what I say - a fallacy for which there is a name. This has also been addressed and is a strawman. I am not wondering why God does not force everyone to believe in him (even if that was possible). That word does not appear in my original question. I ask to be, along with many other potentials, simply convinced by further information- a different emphasis entirely. Why must it be all or nothing? I am asking why, if God knows what ought to work to persuade many more of His existence then why, given that it is their benefit, and that it is supposed His expressed will, He does not just move to do it. It is quite a reasonable ask and one that your Jesus recognises in John 4:48 while Jeremiah 33:3 says God will answer us . As also noted before, it is notable how many believers automatically assume that their God would only force people than just enable them to use their free will through informed decision making. Is that what one might reasonably expect from a god who supposedly values free will? My suspicion is that the faithful, unable to answer such a sensible question face-on, seek to make of it that which it is not. (Or argue as, lately, that making a decisive choice about whether God exists would be a bad thing since it would, er, remove the possibility for the choice just made!) Shall we leave polytheism for another day? However my question can be addressed to any claimed deity that suits. (And who says a god has to have rules?) If only this purported God could persuade many of his existence from the git-go then, eh? I see free will more as a form of intellectual independence, but maybe that is just me. 🛋🥰 imdb2.freeforums.net/thread/329682/theoretical-questionTheoretical questionThank you for your detailed rebuttal.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Feb 18, 2024 20:33:25 GMT
Film flaneur
🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋 Omission of xoxo
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 18, 2024 21:03:20 GMT
I'm sure you won't let it bother you. Any answer to my question yet? See above. Did you ever stop having sex with sheep? (Evasion will be noted.)
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 18, 2024 23:12:21 GMT
I'm sure you won't let it bother you. Any answer to my question yet? See above. Did you ever stop having sex with sheep? (Evasion will be noted.) An ad hominem is not an argument. With each one you become more offensive. Your continuing evasion duly noted. There, saved you the bother.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 18, 2024 23:14:25 GMT
Film flaneur 🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋 Omission of xoxo An emoji is not an argument.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 18, 2024 23:22:15 GMT
See above. Did you ever stop having sex with sheep? (Evasion will be noted.) An ad hominem is not an argument. With each one you become more offensive. Your continuing evasion duly noted. There, saved you the bother. You didn't answer the question. Will I be needing to italicize it?
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Feb 18, 2024 23:27:05 GMT
Film flaneur 🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋🛋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋 Omission of xoxo An emoji is not an argument. No lo contendere. 💋🥰💕🖐
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 18, 2024 23:49:13 GMT
An emoji is not an argument. No lo contendere. 💋🥰💕🖐 Are speaking dogma now?
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Feb 18, 2024 23:55:14 GMT
Non posso, caro mio ! 💕🥰💋🖐
|
|