If Jesus died to forgive us, then why is there a Hell?

@edgarblythe,

It was during their visit with Kublai Khan. Socrates had stinky feet and the Khan had a sensitive nose.

0 Replies

@Tuna,

Quote:

Under no circumstances would I invite anybody I know to this forum until the means to protect people from that sort of thing is available.

I wonder how the people you know would feel about your assumption of how vulnerable and susceptible they are to suggestion, and that they need to be shielded from the the evil Neologist.

Don't you think you're seeing danger where there is only another poster?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

I don't fear that my friends would accidently become Jehovah's Witnesses from exposure to neologist.

It's that I know they aren't used to putting up with what he appears to be doing. I can't get him to deny it, so I have to assume that he's doing it.

Say you and I enter into a discussion and as far as you can tell, I'm just exploring the issue with you. Then you discover that the only reason I'm talking to you is that I have a goal of manipulating you. Everything I've said to you was crafted to influence the way you see yourself and the world. I'm trying to lead you to become a member of an obscure Christian sect so you can await the End of the World with me.

To me, that sort of thing is ******* disgusting. The internet culture that I'm drawn to does not put up with that kind of thing. Put your cards on the table. Don't come with a hidden agenda.

1 Reply

@Tuna,

Tuna wrote:

So, neologist. Do you come to this forum looking for opportunities to evangelize? If that isn't your motive for posting here, just say:

"No. I don't come here to for that."

Were I to say, as you request,"No. I don't come here to for that.", would anyone understand?

Are you asking me to state my confirmation bias? Read my profile. I see you have yet to post yours; so maybe you don't think it's important.

Then, after reading my profile, perhaps you may wish to search for hidden evangelism among my contributions to threads such as the beer thread, among others.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Were I to say, as you request,"No. I don't come here to for that.", would anyone understand?

Why wouldn't people understand it? The fact that you won't say it tells me two things:

1. Evangelizing is the reason you come here.
2. You value honesty.

What I want to draw you to see is that you are engaging in some dishonesty, if not in word, in deed. If you enter into discussions with people, allowing them to think it's just a casual conversation, but you know you have an unannounced agenda, that's dishonest. The harm it does on an internet forum is that it degrades trust. It helps to create an unhealthy atmosphere.

I believe I understand where you're coming from. Maybe you could just put yourself in other peoples' shoes. How would you like it if you found that someone you're talking to has a secret agenda? Wouldn't you prefer it if they would announce in some way to you what they're up to so you know where you stand with them?

0 Replies

@neologist,

Quote:

Leadfoot wrote:
". . . My only bitch is that you aren't willing to engage when an honest discussion happens to bump into your dogma.

But I guess that's what makes it dogma. "

There is scarcely any topic I have failed to discuss at one time or another in the last 10 years. If you see me drop a subject of your interest, just remind me. I have a life. A2k is only a fraction of it.

If you are referring to my current carousel with FBM over the subject of evidence, be assured that I have not forgotten the topic. The problem lies in the fact that I have presented evidence in the past, only to have it rejected as circumstantial or anecdotal. (Really, the only evidence that may be presented) So, I am preparing an answer that may be considered of more substance. (May be.) I'm sure Tuna will be relieved that it will likely be a feeble tool of recruitment.

I'm a relative newbie here so maybe I missed those occasions when you hit the points that interested me.

No, I wasn't thinking about your discussion on evidence with FBM. I've had similar with him and I'd say your avoidance of dogma pales in comparison with his, so much so that I no longer take him seriously on certain points.

There have been several but the one on my mind when I posted my 'bitch' with you was 'what happens when our time here is up' and the role that the '1000 year reign' plays in it.

On the subject of 'recruitment' (or the draft), I'm not surprised that 10 years of trying would have zero results. I'm pretty sure there will only be hard core volunteers in the halls of heaven.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Clarification:
I should have said 'avoidance of discussing one's own dogma' rather than just 'avoidance of dogma'.

0 Replies

@Tuna,

Quote:

I don't fear that my friends would accidently become Jehovah's Witnesses from exposure to neologist.

It's that I know they aren't used to putting up with what he appears to be doing. I can't get him to deny it, so I have to assume that he's doing it.

Say you and I enter into a discussion and as far as you can tell, I'm just exploring the issue with you. Then you discover that the only reason I'm talking to you is that I have a goal of manipulating you. Everything I've said to you was crafted to influence the way you see yourself and the world.

The humorous thing here is that you don't understand that you are here for the same reason as Neologist, myself, or any other poster. You push your idea, and we push ours.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

The humorous thing here is that you don't understand that you are here for the same reason as Neologist, myself, or any other poster. You push your idea, and we push ours.

If that's all we're doing here, that's pretty sad, don't you think? I think there's something more we could be doing. We could be listening to each other.

The question is: what kind of environment is most conducive to a free exchange of ideas? What are your thoughts on that, Glennn?

2 Replies

@Tuna,

Excuse me for concluding there is something fishy in your readiness to judge, Mr. Tuna.

How about your unwarrented reviling of Ragman?

About 4 posts down in this thread:
http://able2know.org/topic/304971-1

Might I suggest testing the depth of the river before leaping in with both feet?

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Excuse me for concluding there is something fishy in your readiness to judge, Mr. Tuna.

How about your unwarrented reviling of Ragman?

About 4 posts down in this thread:
http://able2know.org/topic/304971-1

Might I suggest testing the depth of the river before leaping in with both feet?

I fucked up. I freely admit that. However, that experience generated some confusion for me because I got what I wanted out of it. Ragman has yet to drop in on a philosophy conversation and announce that he thinks it's pretentious.

Weird.

So I gather that you aren't going to address my question. That's cool. As I said, I think what you're doing is wrong.

0 Replies

@Tuna,

Quote:

If that's all we're doing here, that's pretty sad, don't you think? I think there's something more we could be doing. We could be listening to each other.

The question is: what kind of environment is most conducive to a free exchange of ideas? What are your thoughts on that, Glennn?

We are listening to each other. Your problem is that you have decided that some posters' ideas are not worthy of being made public because they are contrary to your ideas.

The kind of environment most conducive to a free exchange of ideas is one in which a given idea is stated, and then others are free to voice their opposition to that idea by way of argument. You are simply condemning Neologist, accusing him of ulterior motives. You should be challenging his ideas instead of conducting yourself in a way that is reminiscent of the old witch hunts. I've stated my opposition to some of Neologist's ideas concerning spirituality. And isn't that what a free exchange of ideas is all about?

2 Replies

@Glennn,

Spot on!

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Your problem is that you have decided that some posters' ideas are not worthy of being made public because they are contrary to your ideas.

That's not true. I'm happy for neologist to present his views. I would like for him to make clear when he does that he uses time here to evangelize. That lets me know where I stand with him.

Glennn wrote:

You are simply condemning Neologist, accusing him of ulterior motives.

I asked him several times to deny it. He hasn't.

1 Reply

@Tuna,

Allow me to introduce myself. Neo is my sock puppet and I darn him when necessary.

But were he ever to compose an incomprehensible sentence such as this:

"No. I don't come here to for that."

I would consign him to that place in the laundry where socks go never to return.
KAPUT!
Gone.

2 Replies

@Joe Sixpack,

Hey! That sounds like my washing machine; lost more than a few socks.

0 Replies

@Joe Sixpack,

Joe Sixpack wrote:

Allow me to introduce myself. Neo is my sock puppet and I darn him when necessary.

But were he ever to compose an incomprehensible sentence such as this:

"No. I don't come here to for that."

I would consign him to that place in the laundry where socks go never to return.
KAPUT!
Gone.

You're right. That sentence makes no sense. No self-respecting sock would say that.

0 Replies

OK, here's how I got it all wrong.

It's because: who gives a ****?

Right. Carry on.

2 Replies

@Tuna,

Quote:

OK, here's how I got it all wrong.

No need to go into all that. That's all in the past now. Jesus died so that you would be forgiven. So, it's as if it never happened. But more importantly, you're not going to Hell! None of us are!! Very Happy

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Are you ******* serious?

2 Replies

If Jesus died to forgive us, then why is there a Hell?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know