|
Post by Admin on Jan 19, 2024 0:31:02 GMT
Film flaneur Law put aide, it is quite possible that ”choice” is never ever possible. Look Up Buddhist ”philosophy”/zen practises. Focus on the conclusion : desire is an illusion for only matter exists, according to it. Desire exists.
|
|
transfuged
Sophomore
@transfuged
Posts: 955
Likes: 307
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 19, 2024 0:39:36 GMT
Film flaneur Ancient doctrines have postulated that the lord Jehovah was the antechrist himself, guilty architect of a dark universal creation. F... them.
|
|
transfuged
Sophomore
@transfuged
Posts: 955
Likes: 307
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 19, 2024 0:40:08 GMT
Admin. Indeed!
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 19, 2024 0:58:46 GMT
To know that of course you would need to have the information given to you. See the advantages? Other than knowing that I have no choice, what information do you think I would need? If it were impossible to lack belief in God, then belief in his existence wouldn't be a choice, informed or otherwise. This isn't rocket science. You'd need to know an election was happening for a start. But no one is saying that God should make Himself impossible to doubt or to lack belief in Him for, as already stated, there will always be the obdurate, even when faced with overwhelming evidence.. Like those Christians (one of whom I am currently debating on another board who reckons the earth is just under 6,000 years old, based on the length of the Hebrew calendar) some people will choose not to believe, no matter what. You are also suggesting a scenario that is not even asked for in my question to the Almighty - for your usual reasons, I suspect.. If he did that, which an all-powerful deity could do by say by mind control then I entirely agree then there would be no free will. But this is light years away from simply asking a god to make itself known unambiguously helping those who seek more evidence along. He knows what will persuade many into belief and what will not, without coercion -so, I ask again, why not just do it? And more is a lack of or refusal to do so really what we might expect from a just and efficient god?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 19, 2024 0:59:50 GMT
Film flaneur Ancient doctrines have postulated that the lord Jehovah was the antechrist himself, guilty architect of a dark universal creation. F... them. er... OK...
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 19, 2024 1:01:46 GMT
Film flaneur I told you I won’t engage in légal speech without getting a fee. I’m expensive. 12 mins 600 €. Do you want a legal speech about contracts, as it comes to the point of consent, focus on violence? I can have bitcoins. No thanks, with your command of English and arcane rambles, a favourable verdict would be doubtful LOL
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 19, 2024 1:04:13 GMT
Film flaneur Correction at the core In the meantime you still have to make it clear why an A FORCED informed decision about any significant decision is worse than being left in the dark. Or why what we expect in other aspects of our lives is suddenly a bad idea. The suspicion though is once that quite reasonable hope is accepted, given what we know of your supposed god's expressed will and power, there's a likely reason why there is continued silence from above. When I ask for a forced choice of anything please mention this again. You may wish to check my original question. Do you usually plead so unprepared?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 19, 2024 1:06:45 GMT
Film flaneur Law put aside, it is quite possible that ”choice” is never ever possible. Look Up Buddhist ”philosophy”/zen practises. Focus on the conclusion : desire is an illusion for only matter exists, according to it. If there is a choice though please choose to put all your insights into one or two messages. This is not instagram and it can be annoying for readers. That's a piece of information for you,
|
|
transfuged
Sophomore
@transfuged
Posts: 955
Likes: 307
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 19, 2024 1:11:26 GMT
Film flaneur ” I ... in the general direction’of you!”
|
|
transfuged
Sophomore
@transfuged
Posts: 955
Likes: 307
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 19, 2024 1:13:48 GMT
Film flaneur I checked then expressed the opinion I’ m entitled to..
|
|
transfuged
Sophomore
@transfuged
Posts: 955
Likes: 307
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 19, 2024 1:15:40 GMT
Film flaneur I would not judge you. The judicial power fees are laughable.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 19, 2024 1:23:19 GMT
Other than knowing that I have no choice, what information do you think I would need? If it were impossible to lack belief in God, then belief in his existence wouldn't be a choice, informed or otherwise. This isn't rocket science. You'd need to know an election was happening for a start. In that light, I would also need to know where the booth is and how to put shoes on if it's snowing on the way. You're being silly. Besides, if there was only one candidate, it wouldn't be an election because there would be no choice. I refuse to believe (haha) that you're unable to understand the very simple fact that if the choice is removed, there would be no decision to make. I'll even demonstrate it, just to humor you: Choose one jelly bean from the image. See how that doesn't work? Your first post in this thread:
|
|
transfuged
Sophomore
@transfuged
Posts: 955
Likes: 307
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 19, 2024 1:34:22 GMT
Film flaneur I do not know about the ”obdurate”. Here the law does not separate state from church, because when church and state were set appart in the other part of the country, this occured in a time when some part of the country had been temporary lost to à foreign country in war. The occupant social laws were the first and Best of the time, so when the place reverted back to the country theiy remained. Though the law in this country states that People are free to engagé in religious beliefs, which deserve law and police protection when needed, but people are free to have no religious belief. Here, where I was born and bred, because of history and interest, sunday school is mandatory for all, on the ground of local law which applies to grammar school, and also, it does not mean people are forced tho engage in religious belief or practices.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 19, 2024 21:23:38 GMT
In that light, I would also need to know where the booth is and how to put shoes on if it's snowing on the way. You're being silly. Besides, if there was only one candidate, it wouldn't be an election because there would be no choice. I refuse to believe (haha) that you're unable to understand the very simple fact that if the choice is removed, there would be no decision to make. I think you are deliberately missing the point again. I am simply asking to be able to make a decision based more information, nothing more nothing less before making a significant choice. I still have yet to have a good reason why having additional information in such circumstances is a bad thing for, as already noted it is something we all ask in our regular lives. Except for the truly gullible that is. That is very kind of you. Sure that doesn't work ... as a relevant comparison. To be more accurate, here all I would be doing is asking for proof that the bean definitely exists, enough to convince me. And even then I may choose not to eat (worship) it. If only your god could reveal itself so unambiguously as you do that bean, eh? Your first post in this thread: Fair enough, I can see it would been better phrased as " ought to convince everyone" - which, since I have mentioned the obdurate always being with us, you might have recognised as what I meant. But the element of coercion over persuasion in being convinced, something discussed more often, is entirely absent. So then: would it be a fair summary of your position that, if there is further information in support of a decision acquired. then this necessarily leads to a reduction of choice and thereby proportionately reduces free will?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 19, 2024 21:29:48 GMT
Film flaneur I do not know about the ”obdurate”. Here the law does not separate state from church, because when church and state were set appart (sic) in the other part of the country, this occured (sic) in a time when some part of the country had been temporary lost to à foreign country in war. The occupant social laws were the first and Best of the time, so when the place reverted back to the country theiy (sic) remained. Though the law in this country states that People are free to engagé in religious beliefs, which deserve law and police protection when needed, but people are free to have no religious belief. Here, where I was born and bred, because of history and interest, sunday school is mandatory for all, on the ground of local law which applies to grammar school, and also, it does not mean people are forced tho engage in religious belief or practices. Ok... and?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 19, 2024 21:32:56 GMT
Film flaneur I would not judge you. The judicial power fees are laughable. That's very kind of you. We all know what Bible says about that sort of thing and believers are supposed to pay attention.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 19, 2024 21:34:30 GMT
Film flaneur I checked then expressed the opinion I’ m entitled to.. Every one is fully entitled to their opinion. But it does not mean they can't be questioned or ridiculed.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 19, 2024 21:35:12 GMT
Film flaneur ” I ... in the general direction’of you!” Genuflect?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 19, 2024 21:36:58 GMT
Film flaneur Achievment is better than trying. Never the less some people, like those who post over and over with one sentence messages, can be very trying.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 19, 2024 21:41:09 GMT
Film flaneur Please leave my ”spelling ” mistakes alone. I do not modify them. In fact quite the opposite: SIC is commonly used to indicate to the curious reader that nothing you wrote has been changed.
|
|