Is it entirely unnecessary and insulting to inform people...

[William]

Is it entirely unnecessary and insulting to inform people...That they are evil in the sight of GOD and bound for hell?

As a human being, how is such theology acceptable and a good and reasonable thing to be stating or even implying of others, on a debate forum or even in day to day life?

Are people right to be able to take a stand against such theology and call it out for being dated, dark, based upon information from dark ages, based in ignorance and evil of intent?

What gives individuals the right to say such things about others?

Is it a form of abuse?

Should others have to take that kind of abuse about their persons without protesting it?

[ttruscott]

achieving God's purpose of heavenly marriage does not make evil a logical necessity, granted it does necessitate free will.

A free will is an absolute necessity for love and marriage to be what we call real, a full communion freely entered.

But I have never argued that the heavenly marriage makes evil a logical necessity but only a logical possibility, a necessary possibility because a will that cannot choose evil is not free.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify...

[ttruscott]

Prospect of evil does not imply actualize evil. So by all means allow the prospect of evil without any actual evil. Simple enough task for an omnipotent God.

Then the 'goodness' of the person is GOD's goodness expressed through the person, not the will of the person. The love of the person is GOD's love expressed through that person, not that person's love.The desire for the communion of marriage is GOD's desire, expressed through the person, not that person's desire for marriage.

The Stepford husbands were satisfied with that...few in real life would call such a farce a perfect loving heavenly marriage. But hey, your milage may vary...

[Bust Nak]

You probably got it now, when you previously didn't.

And what made you think that?

Because I don't think the definition contradicted itself in the same sentence.

That's the whole point of the word "or" one or the other, not necessarily both. Fixed plan or not fixed plan is not a contradiction.

It is obvious, yet here we are having the discussion.

The discussion is about something else though.

In other words, you are wrong in more ways than one. Gotcha.

So you keep saying, how about you start demonstrating that rather that assert it?

Ok...can you defend the concept of NOT sacrificing human lives?

Sure, it's easy. You should not sacrifice human lives because it's wrong according to my standard. Moral judgement are easy to come by when you are a subjectivist.

You are a professed moral subjectivist, which means you can only look at morality from subjective lens (if you are true to your view).

Therefore, any moral judgments/arguments that you make as it relates to ANY single thing related to morality will also be subjective.

I am a professed moral subjectivist sure and moral judgments I make are subjective, but the argument does not appeal to subjectivism, as there is no moral judgement there in the argument what so ever. You are incorrect on the part after the '/' though, moral arguments that I make need not refer to subjectivism and often do not refer to subjectivism.

The argument from evil that you propose...it presupposes a standard of evil, a subjective standard of evil (according to your view)...

Incorrect. The argument from evil that I propose...it presupposes a standard of evil, not necessarily a subjective standard of evil.

If morality is subjective, it doesn't matter whose "subjective" argument it is. Subjective is subjective.

Right, and not subjective is not subjective. The argument doesn't imply a subjective standard.

Assumption. But then again, I can agree with you there...so how about this, lets meet somewhere in the middle here.

If cooks aren't poisoning people's food every day, can we at least agree that at the very least, somewhere in the world...a cook somewhere is putting something "nasty" in someone's food at a restaurant, every single day?

Okay.

Well, if that is the case, you still have faith that a cook didn't put something "nasty" (something you will dislike) in your food.

Why would you think that I have faith in such a thing?

[Bust Nak]

A free will is an absolute necessity for love and marriage to be what we call real, a full communion freely entered.

I have granted you that much.

But I have never argued that the heavenly marriage makes evil a logical necessity but only a logical possibility, a necessary possibility because a will that cannot choose evil is not free.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify...

And thank you for once again granting me that evil is not a logical necessity.

Then the 'goodness' of the person is GOD's goodness expressed through the person, not the will of the person. The love of the person is GOD's love expressed through that person, not that person's love.

What is your reasoning behind these assertions? Why would you insist that the lack of actual evil would in any way be in conflict with the concept of free will what so ever?

The desire for the communion of marriage is GOD's desire, expressed through the person, not that person's desire for marriage.

You are talking as if God programmed a person's free will when I have not suggested such a thing. I keep asking you and have not gotten a direct answer: Are "interferences that do not denies our true free will" is a logical impossibility? If not, then God can interfere in such a way that does not deny our true free will, as God's omnipotence means he can do anything that is logically possibility; and all this talk of "Stepford wives" would be exposed as the red herring that they are. It's not a farce if the "wives" act under their own true free will.

So lets have your answer, can God interfere without denying our true free will?

[ttruscott]

then answer me this:

Are you suggesting that "interferences that do not denies our true free will" is a logical impossibility / incoherient concept?

I do not know if I have an answer to this question because it makes no sense as written. I can take a guess as to what it means but ...

IF it means: an interference to our making a free will decison that forces us to choose one option over other is a logical impossibility / incoherient concept? then I say it is impossible for a free will to be forced to choose one option over another and still be called free. A dry cat cannot at the same time be a soaking wet cat even if its name is Schrödinger, and a free will cannot at the same time be a forced or coerced will.

IF it asks is an interference to our free will possible or impossible I answer yes, it is possible for an interference to our free will to force us to choose only one option whether overtly like a gun to the head or subtly as evidenced by the Christian doctrine that sinners are enslaved by sin, a reference to their being addicted to evil which has overridden their free will and corrupted it to always choose some measure of evil in every expression of desire.

Other than that I have to ask: "interferences that do not [WHAT] denies our true free will"... The logical option left of: "interferences that do not coerce or force us to chose an option over the other options denies our true free will" is wrong. The only denial to a free will is to be forced to choose any one option from the other options available by any and every method of coercion available.

[ttruscott]

And thank you for once again granting me that evil is not a logical necessity.

Excuse me...this has been an integral part of my theology since before day one, Jan 31, 2012. Should I be glad you finally noticed or that you came around?

[Bust Nak]

I do not know if I have an answer to this question because it makes no sense as written.

Well the phrase came from this post of yours. A review of that conversation might make it clearer what I am asking about.

I can take a guess as to what it means but ...

IF it means: an interference to our making a free will decison that forces us to choose one option over other is a logical impossibility / incoherient concept? then I say it is impossible for a free will to be forced to choose one option over another and still be called free. A dry cat cannot at the same time be a soaking wet cat even if its name is Schrödinger, and a free will cannot at the same time be a forced or coerced will.

That much is fine. But not what I was asking.

IF it asks is an interference to our free will possible or impossible I answer yes, it is possible for an interference to our free will to force us to choose only one option whether overtly like a gun to the head or subtly as evidenced by the Christian doctrine that sinners are enslaved by sin, a reference to their being addicted to evil which has overridden their free will and corrupted it to always choose some measure of evil in every expression of desire.

That much make sense too. But still not what I was asking.

Other than that I have to ask: "interferences that do not [WHAT] denies our true free will"... The logical option left of: "interferences that do not coerce or force us to chose an option over the other options denies our true free will" is wrong. The only denial to a free will is to be forced to choose any one option from the other options available by any and every method of coercion available.

Can God interfere in such a way that ensure that we would pick one option over the others without any or every method of coercion or force, or otherwise deny our free will?

Excuse me...this has been an integral part of my theology since before day one, Jan 31, 2012. Should I be glad you finally noticed or that you came around?

Excuse you... what do you mean "finally" or "came around?" When have I ever said anything that would indicate that I didn't know you've thought evil is not a logical necessity? Here is an early example way back in 2013, of me acknowledging that you stated that evil (rejecting God's offer) is not a logical necessity but a mere possibility.

[For_The_Kingdom]

And what made you think that?

Well you know, based on your responses to points...things like that.

The discussion is about something else though.

Which I don't hardly remember.

So you keep saying, how about you start demonstrating that rather that assert it?

That's what I've been doing, and will continue to do. My demonstrations of your errors is already on the record.

Sure, it's easy. You should not sacrifice human lives because it's wrong.

What I asked was; can you defend the concept of NOT sacrificing human lives.

What I didn't ask was; can you make more unproven assertions. After all, I already know the answer to that one

I am a professed moral subjectivist sure, but the argument does not appeal to subjectivism.

Yes it clearly does. What you call "evil" (in the argument) is all according to your own self professed subjective standard.

Incorrect. The argument from evil that you propose

I never proposed an argument from evil..

...it presupposes a standard of evil, not necessarily a subjective standard of evil.

Then what standard of evil, if not necessarily a "subjective" standard of evil?

Right, and not subjective is not subjective.

Why mention "not subjective" when we are talking about subjective (your view).

The argument doesn't imply a subjective standard.

Then what standard does it imply?

Why would you think that I have faith in such a thing?

Because I am assuming that if you "knew" the cook put something nasty in your food, you wouldn't eat it.

Or am I wrong in assuming this?

[Bust Nak]

Well you know, based on your responses to points...things like that.

Be more specific so I can address your misconception, a reasonable request given that you've acknowledge that I got you right.

Which I don't hardly remember.

It's about whether "systematic" necessarily implies intelligence or not, as opposed to whether aurora borealis part of a fixed plan or not.

That's what I've been doing, and will continue to do. My demonstrations of your errors is already on the record.

Asserting that I am mistaken are not demonstrations.

What I asked was; can you defend the concept of NOT sacrificing human lives.

And that was my answer. Yes I can: One ought not sacrifice human lives because it is wrong.

What I didn't ask was; can you make more unproven assertions. After all, I already know the answer to that one

What do you mean unproven? You have my testimony to prove it: one ought not sacrifice human lives because it is wrong.

Yes it clearly does. What you call "evil" (in the argument) is all according to your own self professed subjective standard.

Incorrect. What I call evil is evil according any old standard, not necessarily my own self professed subjective standard. Why continue with the misrepresentation of the argument when I've made it explicit?

I never proposed an argument from evil..

But I did.

Then what standard of evil, if not necessarily a "subjective" standard of evil?

Take you pick, one from the Bible perhaps, as Christians are inclined to do?

Why mention "not subjective" when we are talking about subjective (your view).

Loaded question cannot be answered, the premise that "we are talking about subjective (my view)," is false. We were not taking about a subjective standard in this particular part of the conversation, other than to point out that we are still not taking about a subjective standard.

Then what standard does it imply?

It implies a standard, not specified to any one particular standard.

Because I am assuming that if you "knew" the cook put something nasty in your food, you wouldn't eat it.

Merely not knowing either way is good enough for me.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Be more specific so I can address your misconception, a reasonable request given that you've acknowledge that I got you right.

Yeah, I acknowledge that you got me right, when you are got me right...just like I acknowledge that you got me wrong, when you got me wrong. Now, if it just so happens that my acknowledgment of you having me right/wrong is on the same subject...that is only because of your constant flip-flopping on what you say, which you do a good job of.

And no, I am not going to go back and scavenging through posts/paragraphs of you committing these actions (as I'm sure that would have been my task; dealing with you and all).

I call it out as I see it, when it happens.

It's about whether "systematic" necessarily implies intelligence or not, as opposed to whether aurora borealis part of a fixed plan or not.

Was there an intent/purpose for the creation of aurora borealis? Yes/No?
Was there an intent/purpose for Mona Lisa painting? Yes/No?

Please answer both questions.

Asserting that I am mistaken are not demonstrations.

I did more than that.

And that was my answer. Yes I can: One ought not sacrifice human lives because it is wrong.

Why is it wrong?

What do you mean unproven? You have my testimony to prove it: one ought not sacrifice human lives because it is wrong.

Me: Defend your position that human sacrifices is wrong
You: Ok, I will defend my position. Human sacrifices is wrong

LOL.

Incorrect. What I call evil is evil according any old standard, not necessarily my own self professed subjective standard. Why continue with the misrepresentation of the argument when I've made it explicit?

Misrepresenting? Nonsense. How can what you call "evil is evil according to any old standard", when human sacrifices isn't evil according to the people who partake in human sacrifices?

But I did.

You said I did, though.

Take you pick, one from the Bible perhaps, as Christians are inclined to do?

But morality is objective, according to the Bible.

Loaded question cannot be answered, the premise that "we are talking about subjective (my view)," is false.

Um, well...I will tell you what I was talking about...and that is subjective morality, according to YOUR view...and I've made that explicitly clear, even clarifying as needed.

We were not taking about a subjective standard in this particular part of the conversation, other than to point out that we are still not taking about a subjective standard.

?

It implies a standard, not specified to any one particular standard.

Um, any standard has to be particular, doesn't it?

Merely not knowing either way is good enough for me.

No further questions, your honor.