On Changing Minds

[Guest end3]

For my part, I believe the way to the light is to focus on understanding (or at least loving boundaries where understanding is too challenging) while relinquishing the need to direct change (i.e. control), but I struggle to get my behavior in line with this belief. Nevertheless, it has been rewarding when I succeed! Surrounding myself with kindred spirits in this has been vital in the practice. It's so different from my early environs and company.

 

Phanta

What "light" is this? Can you describe what this "light" is?

 

Things working better. Freer, genuine, more easeful. Light as in both brighter and less heavy.

 

Phanta

Okay, why do you use "light" with a definite article. This would indicate it is a noun, but your description does not seem to describe a noun.

 

Pardon the butt in...but this seems pertinent: Mat 11:30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

[Phanta]

Let me get this straight. You then agree that it is our moral obligation to tell people about the consequences of their actions, and to warn others about the consequences of following in their path. Correct? You also agree that in any circumstances a person committing hateful acts is culpable for their own actions?

 

Almost. What is true is that I was not addressing either of these topics--1) moral obligation to warn or 2) culpability for actions-- in my posts. I think you are beginning to understand that my posts have nothing to do with either of these topics. I'd like to affirm that this is true and leave it at that.

How "almost"?

 

I clarify: You "almost" understand my position.

Your response "almost" was under the section in bold above. It would only seem logical that your response "almost" was in reference to my questions in bold.

 

It sure would. I wasn't really clear, was I? That's why I clarified in the next post: "Almost" means "You almost understand my position."

 

I've been answering many questions you have asked. I thought maybe you might be willing to answer some also. If your response "almost" was in regards to something else then I guess I re-ask the questions above since "almost" does not apply.

 

You said you wanted to get my position straight, and made three comments:

 

1 about my understanding of moral obligation to warn

2 about responsibility for actions

3 about me having an issue with the language used

 

You asked me to affirm that was my position.

 

I said "Almost": You almost reflected back to me my position. #3 is a correct reflection of my position. I DID NOT ADDRESS #1 and #2 in my argument; you added them to my argument. Where you fell short in reflecting my position back to me is that you added a lot of other stuff to my position.

 

To recap: by "Almost" I meant "You almost understand my position." I am not comfortable moving forward communicating with you until you accept this is what I meant by "Almost" and demonstrate actual understanding of my position as I have stated it.

 

Phanta

Okay, I see, well I think we almost have this cleared up. I understand all you want to talk about is item #3.I asked if you would answer some of my questions regarding #1 and #2. This seems like a reasonable request given my polite willingness to entertain your sussing. I assume your not the only one who can suss.

 

After all of this tremendous misunderstanding, you claiming, "Oh, now I hear you" doesn't reassure me that you comprehend my position. You haven't actually demonstrated comprehension to me. If you can demonstrate that you understand my position to my satisfaction, I will then be willing to entertain a couple of direct questions from you.

 

These are my terms. Let me know if you want to accept them and move forward in discussion.

 

Phanta

[Phanta]

What is it that you don't understand about Christ SAVING the lost. That is why we hold Christ in such a high regard, as He does it better than we, me specifically....so, no shit, that't the whole point, about me finding that resource for others.

 

Are you saying to us, then, "You need compassion and love. I can't show you compassion and love, but you can get it from Jesus instead"?

 

Phanta

 

We can show each other love to the limit of our imperfection/salvation relationship. We are moving towards an Ideal. AM says he is fully capable of living the Ideal at any time, giving everyone what they need in return, and I am saying that we are deficient and are moving towards that by what God gives to us in the ongoing relationship with Christ that increases our wisdom through the Holy Spirit and the Bible....and of course creation is evidence to me as well.

 

Ok, so in the first post here, you are finding that resource--love--in yourself through Christ, so you can give love to others.

 

Yes?

 

Phanta

 

yes, emphasis on "through Christ".

 

Ok. I'm glad I'm getting more of an idea where you are coming from, End.

 

Now, "through Christ" means...? You plug into Christ, and are better at being loving? You have to talk about Christ while you love? What?

[Phanta]

For my part, I believe the way to the light is to focus on understanding (or at least loving boundaries where understanding is too challenging) while relinquishing the need to direct change (i.e. control), but I struggle to get my behavior in line with this belief. Nevertheless, it has been rewarding when I succeed! Surrounding myself with kindred spirits in this has been vital in the practice. It's so different from my early environs and company.

 

Phanta

What "light" is this? Can you describe what this "light" is?

 

Things working better. Freer, genuine, more easeful. Light as in both brighter and less heavy.

 

Phanta

Okay, why do you use "light" with a definite article. This would indicate it is a noun, but your description does not seem to describe a noun.

 

Good point! A more accurate word to reflect my view would be "lightness".

 

Phanta

[Phanta]

For my part, I believe the way to the light is to focus on understanding (or at least loving boundaries where understanding is too challenging) while relinquishing the need to direct change (i.e. control), but I struggle to get my behavior in line with this belief. Nevertheless, it has been rewarding when I succeed! Surrounding myself with kindred spirits in this has been vital in the practice. It's so different from my early environs and company.

 

Phanta

What "light" is this? Can you describe what this "light" is?

 

Things working better. Freer, genuine, more easeful. Light as in both brighter and less heavy.

 

Phanta

Okay, why do you use "light" with a definite article. This would indicate it is a noun, but your description does not seem to describe a noun.

 

Pardon the butt in...but this seems pertinent: Mat 11:30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

 

Ray also pointed out that passage to me once, End.

 

My life experiences suggest otherwise and that carries a lot of weight in how I move forward in life. I'm glad, though, that it works for you.

 

Phanta

[OrdinaryClay]

Let me get this straight. You then agree that it is our moral obligation to tell people about the consequences of their actions, and to warn others about the consequences of following in their path. Correct? You also agree that in any circumstances a person committing hateful acts is culpable for their own actions?

 

Okay, I see, well I think we almost have this cleared up. I understand all you want to talk about is item #3.I asked if you would answer some of my questions regarding #1 and #2. This seems like a reasonable request given my polite willingness to entertain your sussing. I assume your not the only one who can suss.

 

After all of this tremendous misunderstanding, you claiming, "Oh, now I hear you" doesn't reassure me that you comprehend my position. You haven't actually demonstrated comprehension to me. If you can demonstrate that you understand my position to my satisfaction, I will then be willing to entertain a couple of direct questions from you.

 

These are my terms. Let me know if you want to accept them and move forward in discussion.

 

Phanta

Looking back on my responses to you I don't see where we predicated anything on negotiations. You asked. I genuinely and honestly answered. I was hoping you would reciprocate.

[Guest end3]

Ok. I'm glad I'm getting more of an idea where you are coming from, End.

 

Now, "through Christ" means...? You plug into Christ, and are better at being loving? You have to talk about Christ while you love? What?

 

Let me give you the mechanism that is in the bible:

 

2Pe 1:2 Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

 

 

2Pe 1:3 His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.

 

 

2Pe 1:4 Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

 

 

2Pe 1:5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge;

 

 

2Pe 1:6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness;

 

 

2Pe 1:7 and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love.

 

 

2Pe 1:8 For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

 

2Pe 1:9 But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins.

 

 

2Pe 1:10 Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall,

 

 

2Pe 1:11 and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

[OrdinaryClay]

For my part, I believe the way to the light is to focus on understanding (or at least loving boundaries where understanding is too challenging) while relinquishing the need to direct change (i.e. control), but I struggle to get my behavior in line with this belief. Nevertheless, it has been rewarding when I succeed! Surrounding myself with kindred spirits in this has been vital in the practice. It's so different from my early environs and company.

 

Phanta

What "light" is this? Can you describe what this "light" is?

 

Things working better. Freer, genuine, more easeful. Light as in both brighter and less heavy.

 

Phanta

Okay, why do you use "light" with a definite article. This would indicate it is a noun, but your description does not seem to describe a noun.

 

Good point! A more accurate word to reflect my view would be "lightness".

 

Phanta

You meant to say "I believe the way to the lightness is to focus on understanding...". The definite article still seems strange, but I have seen stranger things written here.

[bdp]

For my part, I believe the way to the light is to focus on understanding (or at least loving boundaries where understanding is too challenging) while relinquishing the need to direct change (i.e. control), but I struggle to get my behavior in line with this belief. Nevertheless, it has been rewarding when I succeed! Surrounding myself with kindred spirits in this has been vital in the practice. It's so different from my early environs and company.

 

Phanta

What "light" is this? Can you describe what this "light" is?

 

Things working better. Freer, genuine, more easeful. Light as in both brighter and less heavy.

 

Phanta

Okay, why do you use "light" with a definite article. This would indicate it is a noun, but your description does not seem to describe a noun.

 

...being an ass is optional, OC. Phanta is the one person who's indulging you here, and she's just a good person (which means nothing to you Xtians I know, but still) - don't you dare be condescending to her.

[Phanta]

Let me get this straight. You then agree that it is our moral obligation to tell people about the consequences of their actions, and to warn others about the consequences of following in their path. Correct? You also agree that in any circumstances a person committing hateful acts is culpable for their own actions?

 

Okay, I see, well I think we almost have this cleared up. I understand all you want to talk about is item #3.I asked if you would answer some of my questions regarding #1 and #2. This seems like a reasonable request given my polite willingness to entertain your sussing. I assume your not the only one who can suss.

 

After all of this tremendous misunderstanding, you claiming, "Oh, now I hear you" doesn't reassure me that you comprehend my position. You haven't actually demonstrated comprehension to me. If you can demonstrate that you understand my position to my satisfaction, I will then be willing to entertain a couple of direct questions from you.

 

These are my terms. Let me know if you want to accept them and move forward in discussion.

 

Phanta

Looking back on my responses to you I don't see where we predicated anything on negotiations. You asked. I genuinely and honestly answered. I was hoping you would reciprocate.

 

I did ask you many questions, and you gave answers that felt pretty honest and genuine. Thank you!

 

I hear that you are hoping I will reciprocate, and I am telling you that at this point in this particular discussion, you need to meet certain terms in order for me to be able to decide whether or not we are capable, as a pair, of having conversation that feels productive and interesting to me.

 

See, I took your questions as a genuine effort to understand my issue with the passage, and it felt like you were trying to put words in my mouth. Now, based on what you posted above, I'm reassessing your actions. It appears that the issue is not that you were misunderstanding my position, but rather your questions of me are a tool to maneuver me into a particular direction.

 

Is it accurate to say that you are posing questions to me with the intention of leading me in a certain direction? Am I now understanding you properly?

 

Phanta

[Phanta]

Ok. I'm glad I'm getting more of an idea where you are coming from, End.

 

Now, "through Christ" means...? You plug into Christ, and are better at being loving? You have to talk about Christ while you love? What?

 

Let me give you the mechanism that is in the bible:

 

2Pe 1:2 Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

 

 

2Pe 1:3 His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.

 

 

2Pe 1:4 Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

 

 

2Pe 1:5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge;

 

 

2Pe 1:6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness;

 

 

2Pe 1:7 and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love.

 

 

2Pe 1:8 For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

 

2Pe 1:9 But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins.

 

 

2Pe 1:10 Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall,

 

 

2Pe 1:11 and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

 

Thanks for posting, End. I'm going to defer to read and respond until I am clearer-minded. Feeling a little burnt out atm (not regarding you).

 

Be well.

 

Phanta

[Phanta]

For my part, I believe the way to the light is to focus on understanding (or at least loving boundaries where understanding is too challenging) while relinquishing the need to direct change (i.e. control), but I struggle to get my behavior in line with this belief. Nevertheless, it has been rewarding when I succeed! Surrounding myself with kindred spirits in this has been vital in the practice. It's so different from my early environs and company.

 

Phanta

What "light" is this? Can you describe what this "light" is?

 

Things working better. Freer, genuine, more easeful. Light as in both brighter and less heavy.

 

Phanta

Okay, why do you use "light" with a definite article. This would indicate it is a noun, but your description does not seem to describe a noun.

 

Good point! A more accurate word to reflect my view would be "lightness".

 

Phanta

You meant to say "I believe the way to the lightness is to focus on understanding...". The definite article still seems strange, but I have seen stranger things written here.

 

Here is even better:

 

"I believe the way to lightness is to focus on understanding..."

 

Another way of saying it is, "I believe the way to the lighter way of coexistence is to..."

 

My intent was to convey a movement toward what is more easeful, genuine, respectful, positive, uplifting, etc.

 

Phanta

[OrdinaryClay]

Let me get this straight. You then agree that it is our moral obligation to tell people about the consequences of their actions, and to warn others about the consequences of following in their path. Correct? You also agree that in any circumstances a person committing hateful acts is culpable for their own actions?

 

Okay, I see, well I think we almost have this cleared up. I understand all you want to talk about is item #3.I asked if you would answer some of my questions regarding #1 and #2. This seems like a reasonable request given my polite willingness to entertain your sussing. I assume your not the only one who can suss.

 

After all of this tremendous misunderstanding, you claiming, "Oh, now I hear you" doesn't reassure me that you comprehend my position. You haven't actually demonstrated comprehension to me. If you can demonstrate that you understand my position to my satisfaction, I will then be willing to entertain a couple of direct questions from you.

 

These are my terms. Let me know if you want to accept them and move forward in discussion.

 

Phanta

Looking back on my responses to you I don't see where we predicated anything on negotiations. You asked. I genuinely and honestly answered. I was hoping you would reciprocate.

 

I did ask you many questions, and you gave answers that felt pretty honest and genuine. Thank you!

 

I hear that you are hoping I will reciprocate, and I am telling you that at this point in this particular discussion, you need to meet certain terms in order for me to be able to decide whether or not we are capable, as a pair, of having conversation that feels productive and interesting to me.

Doesn't what I feel matter? I did not realize this was all about you.

 

 

See, I took your questions as a genuine effort to understand my issue with the passage, and it felt like you were trying to put words in my mouth. Now, based on what you posted above, I'm reassessing your actions. It appears that the issue is not that you were misunderstanding my position, but rather your questions of me are a tool to maneuver me into a particular direction.

 

Is it accurate to say that you are posing questions to me with the intention of leading me in a certain direction? Am I now understanding you properly?

 

Phanta

Au contraire, I'm trying to have you place words in your own mouth. I can not force you to say anything. You have a free will and can choose your words any way you want. That is what happens in conversations. It's an exchange.

 

Now that you have placed stipulations and are requiring negotiations on our conversation why should I answer your new questions? I'm getting the feeling that maybe we are having a one-way "conversation". Hopefully I'm wrong, and you will answer my questions as well.

[NotBlinded]

OC, if it was 'finished' on the 'cross' - why wasn't it? Didn't 'god' get everything 'he' needed - blood sacrifice, death defeated? Why wasn't it 'game over' then and there? Pretty lousy system where 2,000 years pass and billions of souls are born destined for hell, to say nothing of the rape, murder, genocide, etc. that has gone on in the interim (guess those don't matter to 'god' since they're only temporal occurrences anyway), when it could have all ended with the 'resurrection' if your 'god' really was merciful.

According to OC, it was the lesser evil version of all possible worlds. Fascinating, isn't it? Of the infinite number of possible worlds, this world, and this history, exactly how it played out, is the less evil of them all. 10,000,000,000 humans in Hell for eternity. And only perhaps some millions of Christians in Heaven, eating pizza on gold plates and laughing at the tortured souls.

You know what I would love to see a number for? I would like to see how many digits there would be in all the possible worlds that god would have to chose from based on any given human's freewill choices. This includes every fleeting thought of every second of that person's life. Then! Then I would love to see the statistics on the interactions of these thoughts of that person with the rest of humanity. Then! Then! I would like to see the person that person interacted with and then each other person that interacts with another person, no wait, that was evil, no it wouldn't be evil later... Can calculus even figure something like that? Never.

 

Oh wait! OC says that god is supernatural and supernatural means dectectable, but not predictable. So, how did god chose the least evil existence? It seems that the least evil world would not be predictable. Oh wait...not predictable by us right? I guess the supernatural can be predictable to itself. Hmmm...predictable doesn't mean having complete knowledge though.

 

Several problematic issues arise with the use of the predictive model of divine foreknowledge. For one, predictions do not constitute complete knowledge. Such a model would leave the possibility of a prediction not occurring … an occurrence that would prove God as fallible. According to the tenets of several religions, God is not fallible.

 

The predictive model of divine knowledge would also contradict several concepts put forth by popular religion. One such concept is put forth by Christianity in the form of the claim that God exists outside of time. The very basis of making predictions is predicated on one’s existence in a world of time. For are not predictions based on an occurrence taking place in the future? How so, then, can a being that exists outside of the realm of time make a prediction of the future? For would not the God put forth in Christianity be able to see the past, present, and future simultaneously? Would not the God have to exist in the present instant of existence and be absent from the future to make predictions of the future? For if such a God were to be both present at this instance and also present in the future instances of existence, then one cannot truly call this a prediction so much as an observation of his current existence in the future.

God’s Foreknowledge and Our Free Will

[NotBlinded]

Historiography does not work by recreating the event(in this case a miracle). It works by detecting the side effects of the events that happened.

 

I'm not saying God can not raise people from the dead now. I'm saying it is under the control of His free will as to when to do it.

So if he did, he would have to do so because he already planned to do so. Since he already played out the full scenario of the outcomes of all our lives, and this particular world and chain of events were exactly to his plans (the least evil of all versions), then his interaction and interference must have to be part of the plan from start, otherwise he will change the predicted outcome.

 

This means that he does not make a choice now to do or act. He must follow the plan he set in motion and not deviate one bit. He's a slave to his own scheme for now, at least to the end of time.

Not unless his plan was to change the predicted outcome, then it would be part of the plan. But, he knew he would change it so he decided not to change it afterall, but then he did. It's all part of the plan.

 

It's funny...this sounds so much like the excuse that your prayer is either answered yes, no, or maybe later.

 

Silly.

[Antlerman]

Idiot, where did you read someone has to deserve grace.

Right here:

 

I have compassion for those that it would help. You might go read 2Peter 2 in your spare time.

 

Quit making excuses for your lack of control. And by the way, to call me an idiot is laughable. I've never had anyone call me that before. I take this as the expression someone either having some sort of clinical mental farts, or a man who is desperate for my approval and doesn't know how to go about getting it appropriately. I see some child acting out negatively to feel loved.

 

If it make you feel loved End, you should know that recently, within the last month, I went to bat for you behind the scenes with the other mods to prevent you from being permanently banned. You are here but for my graces in a sense, and because I think you have a good heart despite whatever problem you are having right now that you can't seem to control and are fomenting it towards me. I've stuck my neck out for you... so you may wish to consider that in your shitting on me here.

[Ouroboros]

You know what I would love to see a number for? I would like to see how many digits there would be in all the possible worlds that god would have to chose from based on any given human's freewill choices. This includes every fleeting thought of every second of that person's life. Then! Then I would love to see the statistics on the interactions of these thoughts of that person with the rest of humanity. Then! Then! I would like to see the person that person interacted with and then each other person that interacts with another person, no wait, that was evil, no it wouldn't be evil later... Can calculus even figure something like that? Never.

That's an interesting thought.

 

Yes, calculus could solve it, but I think it fits better under statistics. We would get extremely large numbers, that's for sure.

 

And here's a followup question, how would God go about figure these things out? Does it take him no-time to figure out all possible worlds? Since he is non-temporal, it seems likely. It wouldn't take him any time to figure all the worlds out, since he has no-time. His decision for which one would be made the same instant as he figured out all the scenarios. So basically, God never spent any time, ever to really look at all these things, they just came to him. In an instant, and in the same instant, the world came to be. So why do we need to call this entity God? It sounds like the word "God" is superfluous to the concept.

[bdp]

 

Doesn't what I feel matter? I did not realize this was all about you.

 

 

 

No, seems you think it's all about YOU - you just become more and more of a dick.

[Ouroboros]

Not unless his plan was to change the predicted outcome, then it would be part of the plan. But, he knew he would change it so he decided not to change it afterall, but then he did. It's all part of the plan.

That's my point.

 

If God already knew that he would intervene, then God can't undo that decision. If he does, it means that his knowledge from start was wrong. Supposedly his starting knowledge was that this world (with planned intervention) was the best of all worlds. So if God decided to change something, it either means that his first knowledge wasn't the best, or he is creating a less "good" outcome (intentionally).

 

It's funny...this sounds so much like the excuse that your prayer is either answered yes, no, or maybe later.

Most people will come up with excuses when they're making apologies. Apologists are professional "excuse makers" for religion.

[NotBlinded]

You know what I would love to see a number for? I would like to see how many digits there would be in all the possible worlds that god would have to chose from based on any given human's freewill choices. This includes every fleeting thought of every second of that person's life. Then! Then I would love to see the statistics on the interactions of these thoughts of that person with the rest of humanity. Then! Then! I would like to see the person that person interacted with and then each other person that interacts with another person, no wait, that was evil, no it wouldn't be evil later... Can calculus even figure something like that? Never.

That's an interesting thought.

 

Yes, calculus could solve it, but I think it fits better under statistics. We would get extremely large numbers, that's for sure.

 

And here's a followup question, how would God go about figure these things out? Does it take him no-time to figure out all possible worlds? Since he is non-temporal, it seems likely. It wouldn't take him any time to figure all the worlds out, since he has no-time. His decision for which one would be made the same instant as he figured out all the scenarios. So basically, God never spent any time, ever to really look at all these things, they just came to him. In an instant, and in the same instant, the world came to be. So why do we need to call this entity God? It sounds like the word "God" is superfluous to the concept.

Damn it...I meant statistics! Really I did! You know Csub2 and all that stuff.

 

I honestly don't see how it would be possible to figure that though because it includes those things (like oddities or whatever they're called) as being something that has to be considered, not just left on the bottom of the penny jar. Am I making any sense? Someone changing their mind plays a huge role in this calculation whereas, one person changing their mind about answering a census wouldn't be so much in the overall calculations of who will answer the census.

 

Anyway...just fun mind stuff.

[NotBlinded]

Not unless his plan was to change the predicted outcome, then it would be part of the plan. But, he knew he would change it so he decided not to change it afterall, but then he did. It's all part of the plan.

That's my point.

I knew that.

[Phanta]

I did ask you many questions, and you gave answers that felt pretty honest and genuine. Thank you!

 

I hear that you are hoping I will reciprocate, and I am telling you that at this point in this particular discussion, you need to meet certain terms in order for me to be able to decide whether or not we are capable, as a pair, of having conversation that feels productive and interesting to me.

 

Doesn't what I feel matter? I did not realize this was all about you.

 

Sure, I'll consider what you feel and what you want. Please be plain in your needs and up front regarding your reason for asking. That will help me make a decision about whether I can give you what you want in a way that feels ok to me.

 

See, I took your questions as a genuine effort to understand my issue with the passage, and it felt like you were trying to put words in my mouth. Now, based on what you posted above, I'm reassessing your actions. It appears that the issue is not that you were misunderstanding my position, but rather your questions of me are a tool to maneuver me into a particular direction.

 

Is it accurate to say that you are posing questions to me with the intention of leading me in a certain direction? Am I now understanding you properly?

 

Phanta

 

Au contraire, I'm trying to have you place words in your own mouth.

 

I see that now. How do your questions about morality and culpability bear on my concern about the language used to depict people in 2 Peter 2 (see my original post and a later post offering further explanation)?

 

I can not force you to say anything. You have a free will and can choose your words any way you want. That is what happens in conversations. It's an exchange.

 

Sure. And you can may choose to hear those words however you want. In some cases, that will lead to me saying one thing and you hearing it as something very different, or vice versa. (See as an example most of the "conversations" here in the Lion's Den between Christians and Ex-Christians).

 

Now that you have placed stipulations and are requiring negotiations on our conversation why should I answer your new questions?

 

That's a decision you have to make, not me. I can only state what is comfortable and reasonable to me. I don't presume that these are the same for for both of us (and evidence is bearing differences out), but I think it might be fruitful if it was. I also know I am not downgrading my terms to your level; there are too many opportunities for the conversation to become confused. So, if you decide to discontinue communication, I will respect that and not engage you further on the topic of 2Pet 2.

 

I'm getting the feeling that maybe we are having a one-way "conversation". Hopefully I'm wrong, and you will answer my questions as well.

 

What I'm hearing from you is that a two-way conversation feels satisfying to you when both people are exchanging questions. This, to you, is what constitutes a two-way conversation.

 

This is not enough for me in religious discussions in the Lion's Den.

 

I was getting the feeling you were having a one-way conversation as well, but for a different reason. For me, a two-way conversation arises from a foundation of you being clear on my position to my satisfaction and then me being clear on your position to your satisfaction. After we are both truly clear on each person's position we have a chance at reasonably discussing differences of opinion.

 

Because I have not yet seen convincing evidence that you are clear on my position regarding 2 Peter 2 (you asserting understanding is not sufficient evidence; see many posts in this very thread--including mine--as evidence that people often misunderstand one another even as they claimed perfect understanding), I am not comfortable moving forward.

 

When you are ready for the type of conversation I have outlined, I am here.

 

Phanta

[bdp]

Phanta rocks!

[Ouroboros]

That's my point.

I knew that.

Damn it.

 

I become so simple minded after reading all the apologists' posts. Of course you understood. You're one of the few I know that reads my mind.

[NotBlinded]

That's my point.

I knew that.

Damn it.

 

I become so simple minded after reading all the apologists' posts. Of course you understood. You're one of the few I know that reads my mind.