Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

All topics are always moot.

CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 4:10:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Think your way into this conclusion: All topics are moot. - and now answer:
Is debate purely hedonistic, or are there other factors outside of personal satisfaction, that drive us to reason with others?
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 6:43:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 4:10:45 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Think your way into this conclusion: All topics are moot. - and now answer:
Is debate purely hedonistic, or are there other factors outside of personal satisfaction, that drive us to reason with others?

Why should we come to that conclusion? The reason I debate is to refine my arguments, see which arguments I should abandon (if there's good enough reason), or possibly to re-think my position on certain things. My system of beliefs is quite different than it was ten years ago.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 7:37:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 6:43:08 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/15/2012 4:10:45 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Think your way into this conclusion: All topics are moot. - and now answer:
Is debate purely hedonistic, or are there other factors outside of personal satisfaction, that drive us to reason with others?

Why should we come to that conclusion? The reason I debate is to refine my arguments, see which arguments I should abandon (if there's good enough reason), or possibly to re-think my position on certain things. My system of beliefs is quite different than it was ten years ago. <(XD)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 7:52:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 7:37:32 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/15/2012 6:43:08 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/15/2012 4:10:45 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Think your way into this conclusion: All topics are moot. - and now answer:
Is debate purely hedonistic, or are there other factors outside of personal satisfaction, that drive us to reason with others?

Why should we come to that conclusion? The reason I debate is to refine my arguments, see which arguments I should abandon (if there's good enough reason), or possibly to re-think my position on certain things. My system of beliefs is quite different than it was ten years ago. <(XD)

I have not seen any arguments from you that were strong enough to merit re-thinking my position.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 8:12:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Debating is fun, sharpens critical thinking, increases awareness, you gain new knowledge, it's competitive, and a unique way to interact with people and express disagreement without hostility, and learn about new philosophies and refine your own views and arguments.

What do you have against debates and forums again?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 8:21:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 6:43:08 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/15/2012 4:10:45 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Think your way into this conclusion: All topics are moot. - and now answer:
Is debate purely hedonistic, or are there other factors outside of personal satisfaction, that drive us to reason with others?

Why should we come to that conclusion? The reason I debate is to refine my arguments, see which arguments I should abandon (if there's good enough reason), or possibly to re-think my position on certain things. My system of beliefs is quite different than it was ten years ago.

And i assume the root cause of this reasoning is hedonistic in the sense that it is self serving. We debate to sort of validate how we feel, to enforce our opinions to gain a sense of power.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 8:25:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I generally refute people's opinions merely to throw a wrench into the cogs. Get things spinning so-to-speak. Not because i believe in what I am saying, but I enjoy making people think. Between two truly intellectual people, conversation is easily brought to a moot point.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 9:05:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 8:21:07 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/15/2012 6:43:08 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/15/2012 4:10:45 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Think your way into this conclusion: All topics are moot. - and now answer:
Is debate purely hedonistic, or are there other factors outside of personal satisfaction, that drive us to reason with others?

Why should we come to that conclusion? The reason I debate is to refine my arguments, see which arguments I should abandon (if there's good enough reason), or possibly to re-think my position on certain things. My system of beliefs is quite different than it was ten years ago.

And i assume the root cause of this reasoning is hedonistic in the sense that it is self serving. We debate to sort of validate how we feel, to enforce our opinions to gain a sense of power.

The root cause is not hedonistic. I don't debate to feel powerful, I debate because I'm fully aware I believe wrong things. The only way to discover what I believe wrongly is to engage other ways of thinking and see if one's arguments hold up. If Atheism were true, then debate would be irrelevant because it really doesn't matter that you're an Atheist. However, if Christianity is true, then if you don't ask God for forgiveness from your sins, you will end up in Hell forever. It seems pretty important to straighten your beliefs out.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 9:10:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 9:05:53 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/15/2012 8:21:07 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/15/2012 6:43:08 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/15/2012 4:10:45 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Think your way into this conclusion: All topics are moot. - and now answer:
Is debate purely hedonistic, or are there other factors outside of personal satisfaction, that drive us to reason with others?

Why should we come to that conclusion? The reason I debate is to refine my arguments, see which arguments I should abandon (if there's good enough reason), or possibly to re-think my position on certain things. My system of beliefs is quite different than it was ten years ago.

And i assume the root cause of this reasoning is hedonistic in the sense that it is self serving. We debate to sort of validate how we feel, to enforce our opinions to gain a sense of power.

The root cause is not hedonistic. I don't debate to feel powerful, I debate because I'm fully aware I believe wrong things. The only way to discover what I believe wrongly is to engage other ways of thinking and see if one's arguments hold up. If Atheism were true, then debate would be irrelevant because it really doesn't matter that you're an Atheist. However, if Christianity is true, then if you don't ask God for forgiveness from your sins, you will end up in Hell forever. It seems pretty important to straighten your beliefs out.

So, if not to better yourself for yourself, why then would it matter if you believed in 'wrong' things?
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 9:31:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 9:05:53 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/15/2012 8:21:07 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/15/2012 6:43:08 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/15/2012 4:10:45 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Think your way into this conclusion: All topics are moot. - and now answer:
Is debate purely hedonistic, or are there other factors outside of personal satisfaction, that drive us to reason with others?

Why should we come to that conclusion? The reason I debate is to refine my arguments, see which arguments I should abandon (if there's good enough reason), or possibly to re-think my position on certain things. My system of beliefs is quite different than it was ten years ago.

And i assume the root cause of this reasoning is hedonistic in the sense that it is self serving. We debate to sort of validate how we feel, to enforce our opinions to gain a sense of power.

The root cause is not hedonistic. I don't debate to feel powerful, I debate because I'm fully aware I believe wrong things. The only way to discover what I believe wrongly is to engage other ways of thinking and see if one's arguments hold up. If Atheism were true, then debate would be irrelevant because it really doesn't matter that you're an Atheist. However, if Christianity is true, then if you don't ask God for forgiveness from your sins, you will end up in Hell forever. It seems pretty important to straighten your beliefs out.

If hell is eternal torment I find that punishment deeply irreconcilable with the idea of a loving God. That's among one of my deepest beliefs.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 9:53:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 9:31:28 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

If hell is eternal torment I find that punishment deeply irreconcilable with the idea of a loving God. That's among one of my deepest beliefs.

This.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 10:23:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 9:10:25 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/15/2012 9:05:53 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/15/2012 8:21:07 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/15/2012 6:43:08 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/15/2012 4:10:45 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Think your way into this conclusion: All topics are moot. - and now answer:
Is debate purely hedonistic, or are there other factors outside of personal satisfaction, that drive us to reason with others?

Why should we come to that conclusion? The reason I debate is to refine my arguments, see which arguments I should abandon (if there's good enough reason), or possibly to re-think my position on certain things. My system of beliefs is quite different than it was ten years ago.

And i assume the root cause of this reasoning is hedonistic in the sense that it is self serving. We debate to sort of validate how we feel, to enforce our opinions to gain a sense of power.

The root cause is not hedonistic. I don't debate to feel powerful, I debate because I'm fully aware I believe wrong things. The only way to discover what I believe wrongly is to engage other ways of thinking and see if one's arguments hold up. If Atheism were true, then debate would be irrelevant because it really doesn't matter that you're an Atheist. However, if Christianity is true, then if you don't ask God for forgiveness from your sins, you will end up in Hell forever. It seems pretty important to straighten your beliefs out.

So, if not to better yourself for yourself, why then would it matter if you believed in 'wrong' things?

It is to better myself for myself, but that's not hedonistic. Hedonistic is to seek pleasure as the highest good. I don't debate to seek pleasure. In fact, debating often leads to more frustrations than pleasurable experiences.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 10:26:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 9:31:28 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 4/15/2012 9:05:53 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/15/2012 8:21:07 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/15/2012 6:43:08 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/15/2012 4:10:45 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Think your way into this conclusion: All topics are moot. - and now answer:
Is debate purely hedonistic, or are there other factors outside of personal satisfaction, that drive us to reason with others?

Why should we come to that conclusion? The reason I debate is to refine my arguments, see which arguments I should abandon (if there's good enough reason), or possibly to re-think my position on certain things. My system of beliefs is quite different than it was ten years ago.

And i assume the root cause of this reasoning is hedonistic in the sense that it is self serving. We debate to sort of validate how we feel, to enforce our opinions to gain a sense of power.

The root cause is not hedonistic. I don't debate to feel powerful, I debate because I'm fully aware I believe wrong things. The only way to discover what I believe wrongly is to engage other ways of thinking and see if one's arguments hold up. If Atheism were true, then debate would be irrelevant because it really doesn't matter that you're an Atheist. However, if Christianity is true, then if you don't ask God for forgiveness from your sins, you will end up in Hell forever. It seems pretty important to straighten your beliefs out.

If hell is eternal torment I find that punishment deeply irreconcilable with the idea of a loving God. That's among one of my deepest beliefs.

I don't find it irreconcilable. If God took pleasure in Hell, that would be irreconcilable. But He doesn't take pleasure in it. In fact, no one has to go there. Hell was original created for Satan and his angels. It was never meant for us. If anyone desires not to go there, God has provided the way out. The reason for Hell is because sin is heinous to God. He can't allow it to happen. He can't allow anyone who dies in their sins to go to Heaven. By seeking forgiveness from God and turning away from our sins, God can let us in.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 3:12:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 10:26:01 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/15/2012 9:31:28 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 4/15/2012 9:05:53 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/15/2012 8:21:07 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/15/2012 6:43:08 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/15/2012 4:10:45 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Think your way into this conclusion: All topics are moot. - and now answer:
Is debate purely hedonistic, or are there other factors outside of personal satisfaction, that drive us to reason with others?

Why should we come to that conclusion? The reason I debate is to refine my arguments, see which arguments I should abandon (if there's good enough reason), or possibly to re-think my position on certain things. My system of beliefs is quite different than it was ten years ago.

And i assume the root cause of this reasoning is hedonistic in the sense that it is self serving. We debate to sort of validate how we feel, to enforce our opinions to gain a sense of power.

The root cause is not hedonistic. I don't debate to feel powerful, I debate because I'm fully aware I believe wrong things. The only way to discover what I believe wrongly is to engage other ways of thinking and see if one's arguments hold up. If Atheism were true, then debate would be irrelevant because it really doesn't matter that you're an Atheist. However, if Christianity is true, then if you don't ask God for forgiveness from your sins, you will end up in Hell forever. It seems pretty important to straighten your beliefs out.

If hell is eternal torment I find that punishment deeply irreconcilable with the idea of a loving God. That's among one of my deepest beliefs.

I don't find it irreconcilable. If God took pleasure in Hell, that would be irreconcilable. But He doesn't take pleasure in it. In fact, no one has to go there. Hell was original created for Satan and his angels. It was never meant for us. If anyone desires not to go there, God has provided the way out. The reason for Hell is because sin is heinous to God. He can't allow it to happen. He can't allow anyone who dies in their sins to go to Heaven. By seeking forgiveness from God and turning away from our sins, God can let us in.

There needs to be some redemption. How does a finite transgression warrant infinite punishment? How can those in heaven enjoy it while their loved ones are suffering eternal damnation? God would seem to be punishing these people for ignorance, on top of it all.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 5:19:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 3:12:41 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 4/16/2012 10:26:01 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/15/2012 9:31:28 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 4/15/2012 9:05:53 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/15/2012 8:21:07 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/15/2012 6:43:08 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/15/2012 4:10:45 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Think your way into this conclusion: All topics are moot. - and now answer:
Is debate purely hedonistic, or are there other factors outside of personal satisfaction, that drive us to reason with others?

Why should we come to that conclusion? The reason I debate is to refine my arguments, see which arguments I should abandon (if there's good enough reason), or possibly to re-think my position on certain things. My system of beliefs is quite different than it was ten years ago.

And i assume the root cause of this reasoning is hedonistic in the sense that it is self serving. We debate to sort of validate how we feel, to enforce our opinions to gain a sense of power.

The root cause is not hedonistic. I don't debate to feel powerful, I debate because I'm fully aware I believe wrong things. The only way to discover what I believe wrongly is to engage other ways of thinking and see if one's arguments hold up. If Atheism were true, then debate would be irrelevant because it really doesn't matter that you're an Atheist. However, if Christianity is true, then if you don't ask God for forgiveness from your sins, you will end up in Hell forever. It seems pretty important to straighten your beliefs out.

If hell is eternal torment I find that punishment deeply irreconcilable with the idea of a loving God. That's among one of my deepest beliefs.

I don't find it irreconcilable. If God took pleasure in Hell, that would be irreconcilable. But He doesn't take pleasure in it. In fact, no one has to go there. Hell was original created for Satan and his angels. It was never meant for us. If anyone desires not to go there, God has provided the way out. The reason for Hell is because sin is heinous to God. He can't allow it to happen. He can't allow anyone who dies in their sins to go to Heaven. By seeking forgiveness from God and turning away from our sins, God can let us in.

There needs to be some redemption. How does a finite transgression warrant infinite punishment? How can those in heaven enjoy it while their loved ones are suffering eternal damnation? God would seem to be punishing these people for ignorance, on top of it all.

They're not being punished for ignorance, they're being punished for their sin. Whether some people choose to accept it or not, we all have an innate sense of right and wrong. Those who don't, we label sociopathic. Plus, most people reject God, so they can't honestly claim ignorance. And for the ones who have never heard, they still have that innate sense of right and wrong. Some people are led to Christianity apart from Biblical teaching, just by looking at the evidence in the world around us.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 5:42:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
For the whole God is loving over all else.

He is just above all else.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 5:43:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Lol, what happened to this thread?
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 5:44:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 5:19:41 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/16/2012 3:12:41 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 4/16/2012 10:26:01 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/15/2012 9:31:28 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 4/15/2012 9:05:53 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/15/2012 8:21:07 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/15/2012 6:43:08 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/15/2012 4:10:45 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Think your way into this conclusion: All topics are moot. - and now answer:
Is debate purely hedonistic, or are there other factors outside of personal satisfaction, that drive us to reason with others?

Why should we come to that conclusion? The reason I debate is to refine my arguments, see which arguments I should abandon (if there's good enough reason), or possibly to re-think my position on certain things. My system of beliefs is quite different than it was ten years ago.

And i assume the root cause of this reasoning is hedonistic in the sense that it is self serving. We debate to sort of validate how we feel, to enforce our opinions to gain a sense of power.

The root cause is not hedonistic. I don't debate to feel powerful, I debate because I'm fully aware I believe wrong things. The only way to discover what I believe wrongly is to engage other ways of thinking and see if one's arguments hold up. If Atheism were true, then debate would be irrelevant because it really doesn't matter that you're an Atheist. However, if Christianity is true, then if you don't ask God for forgiveness from your sins, you will end up in Hell forever. It seems pretty important to straighten your beliefs out.

If hell is eternal torment I find that punishment deeply irreconcilable with the idea of a loving God. That's among one of my deepest beliefs.

I don't find it irreconcilable. If God took pleasure in Hell, that would be irreconcilable. But He doesn't take pleasure in it. In fact, no one has to go there. Hell was original created for Satan and his angels. It was never meant for us. If anyone desires not to go there, God has provided the way out. The reason for Hell is because sin is heinous to God. He can't allow it to happen. He can't allow anyone who dies in their sins to go to Heaven. By seeking forgiveness from God and turning away from our sins, God can let us in.

There needs to be some redemption. How does a finite transgression warrant infinite punishment? How can those in heaven enjoy it while their loved ones are suffering eternal damnation? God would seem to be punishing these people for ignorance, on top of it all.

They're not being punished for ignorance, they're being punished for their sin. Whether some people choose to accept it or not, we all have an innate sense of right and wrong. Those who don't, we label sociopathic. Plus, most people reject God, so they can't honestly claim ignorance. And for the ones who have never heard, they still have that innate sense of right and wrong. Some people are led to Christianity apart from Biblical teaching, just by looking at the evidence in the world around us.

Do you believe entrance to heaven is solely about sin or is it lack of sin + acceptance of christ? I'm curious about the case of the virtuous heathen.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 6:22:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 5:43:19 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Lol, what happened to this thread?

To be fair, I have actually been responding to the OP. lol
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 6:24:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 5:44:06 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 4/16/2012 5:19:41 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/16/2012 3:12:41 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 4/16/2012 10:26:01 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/15/2012 9:31:28 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 4/15/2012 9:05:53 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/15/2012 8:21:07 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/15/2012 6:43:08 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/15/2012 4:10:45 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Think your way into this conclusion: All topics are moot. - and now answer:
Is debate purely hedonistic, or are there other factors outside of personal satisfaction, that drive us to reason with others?

Why should we come to that conclusion? The reason I debate is to refine my arguments, see which arguments I should abandon (if there's good enough reason), or possibly to re-think my position on certain things. My system of beliefs is quite different than it was ten years ago.

And i assume the root cause of this reasoning is hedonistic in the sense that it is self serving. We debate to sort of validate how we feel, to enforce our opinions to gain a sense of power.

The root cause is not hedonistic. I don't debate to feel powerful, I debate because I'm fully aware I believe wrong things. The only way to discover what I believe wrongly is to engage other ways of thinking and see if one's arguments hold up. If Atheism were true, then debate would be irrelevant because it really doesn't matter that you're an Atheist. However, if Christianity is true, then if you don't ask God for forgiveness from your sins, you will end up in Hell forever. It seems pretty important to straighten your beliefs out.

If hell is eternal torment I find that punishment deeply irreconcilable with the idea of a loving God. That's among one of my deepest beliefs.

I don't find it irreconcilable. If God took pleasure in Hell, that would be irreconcilable. But He doesn't take pleasure in it. In fact, no one has to go there. Hell was original created for Satan and his angels. It was never meant for us. If anyone desires not to go there, God has provided the way out. The reason for Hell is because sin is heinous to God. He can't allow it to happen. He can't allow anyone who dies in their sins to go to Heaven. By seeking forgiveness from God and turning away from our sins, God can let us in.

There needs to be some redemption. How does a finite transgression warrant infinite punishment? How can those in heaven enjoy it while their loved ones are suffering eternal damnation? God would seem to be punishing these people for ignorance, on top of it all.

They're not being punished for ignorance, they're being punished for their sin. Whether some people choose to accept it or not, we all have an innate sense of right and wrong. Those who don't, we label sociopathic. Plus, most people reject God, so they can't honestly claim ignorance. And for the ones who have never heard, they still have that innate sense of right and wrong. Some people are led to Christianity apart from Biblical teaching, just by looking at the evidence in the world around us.

Do you believe entrance to heaven is solely about sin or is it lack of sin + acceptance of christ? I'm curious about the case of the virtuous heathen.

No one is without sin. Getting in to Heaven *is* about acceptance of Christ. Christ has promised to forgive our sins to anyone who asks. If you don't accept Christ, and thereby forsake the forgiveness He offers, then Hell is your destiny. It doesn't have to be that way. Many people tend to miss the mercy part of God, that He offers salvation to anyone who wants it.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 6:24:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 5:19:41 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
They're not being punished for ignorance, they're being punished for their sin.

Do you think finite crimes can be deserving of infinite punishment? If so, give an example.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 6:29:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 6:24:12 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/16/2012 5:44:06 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 4/16/2012 5:19:41 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/16/2012 3:12:41 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 4/16/2012 10:26:01 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/15/2012 9:31:28 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 4/15/2012 9:05:53 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/15/2012 8:21:07 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/15/2012 6:43:08 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/15/2012 4:10:45 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Think your way into this conclusion: All topics are moot. - and now answer:
Is debate purely hedonistic, or are there other factors outside of personal satisfaction, that drive us to reason with others?

Why should we come to that conclusion? The reason I debate is to refine my arguments, see which arguments I should abandon (if there's good enough reason), or possibly to re-think my position on certain things. My system of beliefs is quite different than it was ten years ago.

And i assume the root cause of this reasoning is hedonistic in the sense that it is self serving. We debate to sort of validate how we feel, to enforce our opinions to gain a sense of power.

The root cause is not hedonistic. I don't debate to feel powerful, I debate because I'm fully aware I believe wrong things. The only way to discover what I believe wrongly is to engage other ways of thinking and see if one's arguments hold up. If Atheism were true, then debate would be irrelevant because it really doesn't matter that you're an Atheist. However, if Christianity is true, then if you don't ask God for forgiveness from your sins, you will end up in Hell forever. It seems pretty important to straighten your beliefs out.

If hell is eternal torment I find that punishment deeply irreconcilable with the idea of a loving God. That's among one of my deepest beliefs.

I don't find it irreconcilable. If God took pleasure in Hell, that would be irreconcilable. But He doesn't take pleasure in it. In fact, no one has to go there. Hell was original created for Satan and his angels. It was never meant for us. If anyone desires not to go there, God has provided the way out. The reason for Hell is because sin is heinous to God. He can't allow it to happen. He can't allow anyone who dies in their sins to go to Heaven. By seeking forgiveness from God and turning away from our sins, God can let us in.

There needs to be some redemption. How does a finite transgression warrant infinite punishment? How can those in heaven enjoy it while their loved ones are suffering eternal damnation? God would seem to be punishing these people for ignorance, on top of it all.

They're not being punished for ignorance, they're being punished for their sin. Whether some people choose to accept it or not, we all have an innate sense of right and wrong. Those who don't, we label sociopathic. Plus, most people reject God, so they can't honestly claim ignorance. And for the ones who have never heard, they still have that innate sense of right and wrong. Some people are led to Christianity apart from Biblical teaching, just by looking at the evidence in the world around us.

Do you believe entrance to heaven is solely about sin or is it lack of sin + acceptance of christ? I'm curious about the case of the virtuous heathen.

No one is without sin. Getting in to Heaven *is* about acceptance of Christ. Christ has promised to forgive our sins to anyone who asks. If you don't accept Christ, and thereby forsake the forgiveness He offers, then Hell is your destiny. It doesn't have to be that way. Many people tend to miss the mercy part of God, that He offers salvation to anyone who wants it.

Then it is a punishment out of ignorance of Christ's true nature. Most atheists or people of other religions aren't maliciously rejecting Christ, they're just unconvinced. Non-believers really don't have a conscious choice to believe in God just as atheists can't just "choose" to believe in God. There needs to be an fundamental shift in mindset. I'd be inclined to call that ignorance over malicious rejection.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 6:30:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 6:24:12 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
No one is without sin. Getting in to Heaven *is* about acceptance of Christ.

This seems to answer the question I just posed. You believe everyone is equally a sinner, no matter how strong or weak those sins are. So the distinction between those who go to Heaven and those who go to Hell rests in the acceptance or not of Christ.

Ultimately, that is the one finite crime worthy of infinite punishment: not accepting Christ, which is essentially thought crime.

What do you really consider "right" and "wrong", KeytarHero? Because by placing everyone on an equal level of "sinner" and separating them into two groups based solely on their acceptance or not of Christ would be to say that the only "right" thing is accepting Christ and the only "wrong" thing is not accepting Christ.

Further, I seem to have missed your thoughts, if you provided them, on those who were physically unable to "accept Christ". For example, a newborn baby who dies shortly after birth or a man who lived his life on a remote island far from normal civilization.