The Anguish of Semi Believers. - Page 5

chezlaw · #41 09-16-2005, 10:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Don’t mean to burst your bubble, but he meant it this way: even though you might have gotten, for example, over 700 on SAT it doesn’t mean diddly. My words not his.

I can’t help you about your updated post as I only read my own posts. - Just kidding, of course.

But, your post reminds me of the old joke:

I never make mistakes.
Oh, actually I have made one in my life - The time I thought I was wrong (but actually I wasn’t wrong).

I ruined the joke with my delivery. See the thread regarding comedians and high IQ for reference what that might mean - lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt that's what he meant, your words are almost treason and violate the first principle of Sklanskyanity. Next you will be saying that DS believes IQ test results don't mean diddly.

Anyway too late. My Sklanskyanity rating of '700 something' is on my cv to stay.

chez

baggins · #42 09-17-2005, 12:31 AM

mr. Sklansky, I hear what you're saying. and if this version of God were the only God we were debating about, I would think this an issue worth more consideration.

However, I don't think this God you are talking about exists. the God I believe in loves you (yes, you, David), and wants to have a personal relationship with you. He wants very much to give you a life more abundant than you could imagine - not just in 'eternity' but here and now.

and He doesn't punish people in some fiery pit to be tortured by some little red devil with a pitchfork and horns. He simply wants you to spend your life, and ever after, with Him. he gives you that option. if you choose not to take it, or not to put your Faith in Him, then you have chosen an eternity of separation from Him. you can call this 'Hell' if you want. but it's not a punishment for anything. it's your choice. the bible says 'the wage of sin is death.' not eternal punishment. we are all sinners, eventually going to die the physical death which is appointed to all humans...

anyway, from your stance, it must seem like this doubters' dilemma is a very horrible thing. (doubt, by the way, doesn't mean that you don't believe) and i'm sure it is a real problem for a lot of people. but, there is more to it. and simply acknowledging that God may exist is just barely a starting point. if you want some more certainty one way or another, at least pursue it and do some research.

David Sklansky · #43 09-17-2005, 12:38 AM

This thread seems to be bringing a different kind of Christian out of the woodwork. They don't believe in an eternal hell and seem to think that just being good is enough to give you a nice shot at heaven.

You could almost say these folks are Jewish except that they believe Jesus showed up to get everybody back in line, but not much more than that.

#44 09-17-2005, 03:26 AM

You claim that semi-believers are in a worse state than either non-believers or whole-hearted believers.

Yet isn't the capacity to entertain the two (or more) sides of a concept the mark of an intelligent man? And wouldn't the entertainment of such a concept in different perspectives be preferable to a rigid and unchanging viewpoint?

#45 09-17-2005, 04:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Yet isn't the capacity to entertain the two (or more) sides of a concept the mark of an intelligent man? And wouldn't the entertainment of such a concept in different perspectives be preferable to a rigid and unchanging viewpoint?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to a God who demands 100% belief.

The Dude · #46 09-17-2005, 04:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'll take the fires of Hell rather than supplicate myself to a god that would punish me for not believing in him after giving me the free will to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]
I hope everybody who actually read this line realizes how incredibly stupid it is.

[ QUOTE ]
True atheists are the safest of all, since mentally we are capable if accepting the existence of whoever shows up.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is completely contraty to what you just said, and is just as ridiculous.

chezlaw · #47 09-17-2005, 07:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I hope everybody who actually read this line realizes how incredibly stupid it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah the new Sklanskianity, refutation by sillyness.

If you think about what his saying instead of taking it so literally you might see it's not so silly.

chez

John Cole · #48 09-17-2005, 08:20 AM

Why should I?

The Dude · #49 09-17-2005, 08:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If you think about what his saying instead of taking it so literally you might see it's not so silly.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do people feel the need to exaggerate their point to the extent of utter irrationality, instead of just saying what they mean in the first place? Is it because they don't think their position is valid stated truthfully? If the OP had said "I despise the thought that God would give us free will, then punish us for using it to not choose him," I could accept that statement. I might still attempt to refute it, but I would at least accept the rationality of it. But the statement he made was ridiculous.

If the OP did, in fact, mean what you contend he did, then he (and everybody else who employs that tactic) needs to start saying what they mean.

So now I want to know. To the OP: did you mean precisely what you said?

chezlaw · #50 09-17-2005, 08:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you think about what his saying instead of taking it so literally you might see it's not so silly.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do people feel the need to exaggerate their point to the extent of utter irrationality, instead of just saying what they mean in the first place? Is it because they don't think their position is valid stated truthfully? If the OP had said "I despise the thought that God would give us free will, then punish us for using it to not choose him," I could accept that statement. I might still attempt to refute it, but I would at least accept the rationality of it. But the statement he made was ridiculous.

If the OP did, in fact, mean what you contend he did, then he (and everybody else who employs that tactic) needs to start saying what they mean.

So now I want to know. To the OP: did you mean precisely what you said?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you just change [ QUOTE ]
I'll take the fires of Hell

[/ QUOTE ] to [ QUOTE ]
I'll take the risk of the fires of Hell

[/ QUOTE ] then I agree with it and it also what I took his statement to mean - maybe it wasn't clear or maybe it wasn't what he meant, unambiguous language is tough.

chez