Salieri

I know that atheists think they are indifferent to God, but how can you be both for and against something at the same time? How is that possible? If you are not for Christ, then you are against him. In other words, you either think he is telling the truth or he is lying. If you simply DOUBT that Christ is telling the truth, then how can you be FOR him? Therefore, you are NOT for him if you doubt him. This is not indifference but you are taking a stand. And since one day you will know the truth, then heaven and hell are fair and just. Heaven and hell EXIST to show us what the truth is. How else could we find out?

Vorkosigan

Sal, unless you are making a genuine argument for the existence of gods, please take this to another forum, such as GRD or ~E~. If you want to discuss truth, please go to Philosophy. In the meantime, I am moving this to ~E~

Vorkosigan

Ovazor

Indifference=neither for nor against

I don't think that he, if he ever existed, was lying. He was just as every other religious loon. They don't lie, they are absolutely convinced that they are right.


Indifference means neither for nor against.

Are you here to preach, Salieri? Yes or no?

Alf

This is based on a flawed dichotomy.

If someone is not in favor of X it does NOT mean they are against X.

First off, in order for me to agree with X or disagree with X I would have to have the following conditions satisfied:

1. I would be fairly sure that X at all exist. If X does not exist I consider it pointless to be either for or against what other people claim X said. Of course, I can be for or against what those things being said - it does not require X to actually exist - but in order for me to from there say "I agree with X" or "I disagree with X" I would have to be fairly sure that X exist. Otherwise I would consider such statements meaningless.

2. I would be fairly sure that X actually said what people claim he or she said. Even if X exist, if X never said A then me agreeing or disagreeing in A makes no influence on whether I should agree or disagree with X unless X actually said A. Again, I can agree or disagree with A but unless I am sure that X actually said A it makes no sense to conclude that "I agree with X when he said A" or "I disagree with X when he said A" if X did not say A.

As far as I know, both these conditions are not satisfied with respect to Jesus and what people claim he said. It is therefore impossible for me to be either FOR or AGAINST him and so your dichotomy is not simply wrong but it is the third alternative "I am neither FOR nor AGAINST him" that is the correct answer.

Alf

Jedi Mind Trick

Luk 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid [him] not: for he that is not against us is for us. :huh:

Salieri

So then you are not FOR Christ, is that correct? It is absolutely IRRELEVANT WHY you are not for him. You will fight against his words. Is that correct?

Sven

:huh:
indifferent is not equal to either for or against. It's a third possibility.

I ask again: Is this a joke?

And please stop starting new threads with the exact same crap as in the ones before. Answering some posts in the threads you started previously would be much more welcomed.

That's the same bullshit kind of black-and-white logic which the leader of your country used some time ago. Doesn't make it right in any way.

Are you for or against Santa Claus?

Crap. Again. Ever heard about being honestly mistaken?
Heck, even Lewis did better than you, but his false trichotomy was nevertheless crap. Limiting it to only two possibilities certainly doesn't make it better.

Why not? If what he says makes sense, it doesn't matter if Jesus lied, telled the truth and/or was mistaken (or if he even existed). One can still value his words.

Perhaps you should learn the meaning of "indifferent" first.

Non sequitur. Care to explain the logic?

How is one supposed to find out that heaven and hell exist? This seems to be the prerequisite to learning what the truth is.

Salieri

In the case of Christ, you have NO alternative other than to be for or against him. You either fight FOR his words, or fight AGAINST his words REGARLDESS OF WHY you fight for or against them. If you think there are other alternatives to Christ then you are fighting AGAINST his words that he is the only way to God, are you not? Even if you think they were made up or are lies, you are STILL fighting AGAINST them! You can call it anything you want, but again, "he who is not for me is against me." Sorry but you guys CANNOT get out of this one unless you become illogical.

Sven

You just don't get it, do you?

So then you are not FOR Iluvatar, is this correct? It is absolutely IRRELEVANT WHY you are not for him. You will fight against his words. Is that correct?


Since when is fighting against some of the words someone (supposedly) said the same as fighting against that person? Since when is ignoring some words someone supposedly said the same as fighting against these words?

Perhaps you could start to explain the logic in your statement(s) above.

Jedi Mind Trick

No,
The halls of Mandos exist in Valinor to show us what truth is. :Cheeky:

Sal,
You need to learn from the pity of Nienna who plead for Melkor instead of condemning him.



You see, one can draw meaning from pure fiction.