MahtiSonni

I do see that your assertions lacking any and all evidence are not about to cease. Wonder of wonders! Having you as a friend they have little reason to be. Then again, pride is never justified. It is the most antisocial trait of them all. It would be faster to just say that they won't see reason. As you stated, they're invincibly ignorant, like you. Look, it's patently obvious that you're oblivious to any and all information, which leads to the conclusion that your hatred of God is some form of daddy issue that you really need to sort out. It's not healthy having that sort of bitterness that you pretend is directed at what you don't even believe exists. Find out the real culprit, get angry at it, then a closure, and through that, some harmony of mind and eventual sanity. You've got a long way to go, as currently you're little more than a personified grudge looking for a proxy target to attack as you're too afraid to take on the real one.

I guess I shall. If you ever want to rethink your commitment to self-immolation by pride, you know what to do.

You misunderstood what I said above. I am not interested in repeating answers to the same accusations masquerading as questions over and over. We're done here.

The left has been trying that for a couple of centuries now. Their main weapons are deceit, statism and defecating over everything reminding them of actual culture. They paint everything over with lies and ugliness, promoting nihilism, carnality and consumerism. Are you sure you want to be on that team?

An actual answer to my question would have been "no, I don't". No, as free moral action is hardly random. Are you aware of the fact that no matter how many times your assertions and assumptions are shown to be false, the only thing you're thinking about is "how I can attack now"? No information gets through or has you questioning anything about your prejudices. It appears you are one of those of whom Aristotle said cannot be instructed - a living testament to what your "invincibly ignorant" means. Oh well. At least I got something out of this.

Do you have any evidence to support that?

I have let friends go for two reasons: drug use and disloyalty. Two very real things. The first is quite self explanatory - I don't want to hang around with people who use drugs. Even if said person is nice, the people around him are not, and if we're friends I'll be seeing those boogers eventually. The second was the sort who gave dismissive comments about my relationships and was fully expecting them to fail. I figured it does me no good to have that sort of friend around. My friendship does not wear with age. There are times I see people I love rarely - sometimes years go past - and that doesn't harm the relationship in the slightest. I know I have their back and they have mine, if the situation requires.

Do you think God offered himself on the cross because he wants to burn people? Your premises are wrong here, which understandably lead to a problem for you. I don't know what "invincibly ignorant" means. Is "too proud" a more accurate translation to language we can both understand? Usually ignorance isn't that hard to gain victory against provided one does not take pride in their ignorance. As they say, fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. The thing they seldom tell is that said fear is hardly the whole picture. Do your friends have any redeeming virtues to counter their egomania?

Because I was called a bullshitter for offering several criticisms of shoddy arguments and/or attacks at a flimsy strawman. I kinda feel that once someone calls your stuff bullshit that is also questioning the truth value of what has been said. When I wrote the first, I was thinking about the fact that he attacked a "omniscient, omnipotent god", while of existing religions IMHK only Islam purports to have one by its actual theology. Considering that his book is an obvious attack on Christianity specifically, it's more than slightly suspicious that he didn't take on the biblical God. I thought I had written it out, but apparently did not, so I understand the reason for your confusion. So mea culpa there - I accused Stefan of being too lazy while being too lazy myself. I believe Stefan was far too lazy at the omniscience point, but didn't fathom it. When one has a bias, the things he overlooks tend to be of the sort that make his position less strong. Both omniscience and omnipotence can be redefined to be "self-contradictory" even alone, but that's no evidence for much other than a knack for making up oxymorons.

That is one reasonable perspective; it is also fulfilling a religious duty.

To be fair, it's not like there were a generous supply of them in any other population either. Try your "racism" schtick with someone who cares about magic words. To do so serves the truth, the way and the life. In more ways than one. If all went to hell who deserve it, the population of heaven would probably be low indeed, and that is a place humans were never even supposed to go.

I'm not sure if you're being disingenuous or truly can't understand what was asked of you. When you're being asked what was compassionate about first entirely ignoring, then comparing, someone who asks for help, a dog, saying what He did after that does not answer the question. Thanks for the correction, though. I got dem furriner wimin mixed up.

Funny; I was not aware that we were having an argument. Usually that involves having both a subject and arguments about it. "I think" and "I don't think" do not match criteria for such. I didn't think about the word's meaning through prior either. Probably very few have. I believe he has made a honest mistake on that point. We all also have our blind spots, and that includes Stefan. When he started several of his early books about subjects like ethics and relationships with a sermon against religion, it's safe to say that's where he is at his most emotional and least rational, which is apparent from his arguments against them. I'm not overly concerned that you get offended about that. I seek truth, not approval.

I thank you for both the advice about the forum and for sharing the saner opinion of the two. You don't need to be financially "there" to start a family well - I certainly wasn't. Most of our forefathers weren't either, I think.

Obviously, because we are commanded to, and, because people being natural saints is pretty damn rare and perhaps it would be a good idea to save as many as we can.

I'm having trouble understanding whose life the Samaritan woman asking for help was destroying, in your opinion, to make comparing her to a dog somehow compassionate. Is this another of those cases where words have no real meaning at all and anything can mean anything? To me, Christ's answer to her was about as far from compassionate as it gets.

Infidelity is a form of evil that is usually chosen both deliberately and for pleasure. So are most other forms of betrayal. Ask a rapist or a sadist. The latter leads to the first. One can't ditch the fact that pleasurable feelings feel good, even if one can ditch all moral judgments. To abolish the moral level is to revert to the animal. Utilitarianism is a means lacking an end. I have trouble following your train of thought here; maybe someone on the same bandwidth can understand your point better. I agree.

My main reason to prefer the definition I have presented is that the common definition does not make sense. Another reason is that truth is not a democracy. I also prefer to use the Ockham's razor, and having an interpretation of the word compatible with the Bible is a lot easier to explain than another, which makes the whole book an absurd farce. People use the common definition, not because they think is sound, but because they have heard it, and simply accepted and not thought about it. Most people do not spend any time thinking about philosophy. Any honest philosopher should attack the strongest possible form of an argument. To do otherwise is merely pretending to defeat it.

Biblically speaking, God is love. So the GB argument here is that Satan gave mankind love by getting them turn their backs on love and choosing evil in its stead. How to discuss with someone who redefines death and getting stuck in shackles of sin love? I do not think there is such a way.

If you don't mind I'll butt in to offer a few thoughts. Good is superior to evil, as all evil can do is influence or pervert that which aims at good. It is rare in the extreme to do evil for the sake of doing evil, and even then it is debatable. The most common reason for choosing evil is the fact that it is easier to choose the path of least resistance and/or more pleasure in the short term. People generally seek comfort and avoid discomfort and the culture in the West today really pushes people to do just that.

Indeed. The difference between his approach and mine is that I prefer the correct way over the common. If one wants to demolish a position, he should take on the strongest possible interpretation possible, for to do otherwise is to argue in bad faith. Why not take on the biblical definition of God when it is the target anyway (as that is the only god known as an omnipotent & omniscient creator; nobody has ever attributed such to Odin or Marduk)?

I answered his question in the messed up quote I first wrote on this topic. Now it appears that isn't the question this drama queen meant and I'm supposed to read his mind. I think I'm done with this one. Not wondering about his reputation anymore.

I'm confused now. Were you looking for an answer to a question that wasn't "Is there such a thing for humans as 'original sin'?" If so, I missed it. As I am baffled by the reaction I ask you to restate the question I have not answered to. Answering a question in a straightforward fashion was my intent. I won't continue this discussion in the other guy's topic, especially when that topic is about a person asking for help. It is obnoxious. It is not only implicitly saying that his problem is of no importance but also you'd rather take his thread and go with it to talk about what you want to talk about instead of starting your own and let him have his. If someone did that to me, I'd get really offended. Not everything revolves around you.

Well well, there was a topic for this after all. @barn invaded another thread to talk about this, so I came here, where such discussion is actually on topic. I consider it bad form to hijack someone's topic - and doubly so when that someone is asking for help - and so comment here. So his questions are

I'd rather not hijack Echopeak's thread. He speaks from his heart and is asking for help and wisdom some of us might be able to provide. Let us show respect. If you start a thread on the subject (or continue one you could find) in the correct subforum, I'll join in.