How can a god, that apparently loves everyone, allow this kind of thing to happen?

[StuW]

Not with the hold you lot have on the government atm...

[Zazzy]

If John doesn't have me on ignore, he can be of good cheer. Going around the world and personally beating every pro-choice woman in it would
a.) necessitate his god's assistance- even Santa Claus doesn't have it that rough.
b.) mean that there would be much suffering that would cause the people around them to grow spiritually. Because, after all, you need suffering in order for there to be compassion.

Is it possible he is really that literal, or was he just looking for a way out of the conversation? Can someone help me understand what just happened here?

[catfish]

If John doesn't have me on ignore, he can be of good cheer. Going around the world and personally beating every pro-choice woman in it would
a.) necessitate his god's assistance- even Santa Claus doesn't have it that rough.
b.) mean that there would be much suffering that would cause the people around them to grow spiritually. Because, after all, you need suffering in order for there to be compassion.

Is it possible he is really that literal, or was he just looking for a way out of the conversation? Can someone help me understand what just happened here?

The only one who can help you understand what happened is you.
Do you know what a loaded question is?

[Zazzy]

The only one who can help you understand what happened is you.
Do you know what a loaded question is?

Believe it or not, catfish, but if John truly believes I just accused him of physical woman-beating, then I feel bad about that. I actually like John. I think he's got some bizarre views, and I think he may have worded some of those views in a more inflammatory manner than he intended, but I don't think he's a bad guy, or an idiot. So I am genuinely asking if there is really any way he could have misinterpreted my statement that much. But be a dick about it, why don't you.

[catfish]

The only one who can help you understand what happened is you.
Do you know what a loaded question is?

Believe it or not, catfish, but if John truly believes I just accused him of physical woman-beating, then I feel bad about that. I actually like John. I think he's got some bizarre views, and I think he may have worded some of those views in a more inflammatory manner than he intended, but I don't think he's a bad guy, or an idiot. So I am genuinely asking if there is really any way he could have misinterpreted my statement that much. But be a dick about it, why don't you.

You want me to be a dick about it? Fine...

You used demonising tactics and he called you on it. Correct it or defend it, those are your only options, otherwise you're a disingenious troll.

[Bad Wolf]

He demonized himself with his own views, its not demonizing tactics to point that out

[Faith No More]

You can't learn to comfort if no one needs comforting.

So, suffering exists to teach people how to comfort? Yet no one would need to be comforted if suffering didn't exist. You're going in circles.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

So, using that logic, this version of a god is effectively the ultimate sadistic utilitarian. It views children (severely handicapped children who probably exist in a lot of pain and suffering) as a means to an end to, what, test the people around them such as immediate and extended family?

Most children are born and a few unfortunately are not. Most people can drive to work safely and some of them are unfortunately killed in an accident and so on there is an element of chance. It doesn't somehow prove prove that the universe itself was an accident/chance or God does not care. God has more to offer the people involved in these unfortunate situations than you ideology ever could offer.

Funny how when push comes to shove, god turns into a glorified psychologist rather than an omnipotent being who created everything and can change everything for the better.

Edit: I have no intentions of insulting psychologists.

[Zazzy]

You want me to be a dick about it? Fine...

You used demonising tactics and he called you on it.

And I have clarified that I certainly didn't mean what he apparently thought I meant. I'll do it again for the record: I NEVER meant to insinuate that John beats women. In order for him to take that seriously, he'd have to think that I think that he flies around the world beating women one at a time. Which is, of course, a bizarre scenario, so even if I did think that John was violent toward women (which I don't), you'd have to be high to think I meant anything other than beating in a political sense.

[quote] Correct it or defend it, those are your only options, otherwise you're a disingenious troll.

Yawn. Coming from someone who just got banned for a couple of weeks for bad behavior, I'm not weeping over your opinion of my behavior. I'm only replying to you in case John has me on ignore (how do you know if that's the case?), since I want to extend public and genuine apologies if he thought I was accusing him of something so awful. Perhaps you'll quote me so he'll see it. If not, I'll PM him and the apology won't be as public as I'd like.

In any case, fuck off to you.

[catfish]

You want me to be a dick about it? Fine...

You used demonising tactics and he called you on it.

And I have clarified that I certainly didn't mean what he apparently thought I meant. I'll do it again for the record: I NEVER meant to insinuate that John beats women. In order for him to take that seriously, he'd have to think that I think that he flies around the world beating women one at a time. Which is, of course, a bizarre scenario, so even if I did think that John was violent toward women (which I don't), you'd have to be high to think I meant anything other than beating in a political sense.

You know what? Litteral or not, the wording used was demonising, you can admit that, really...

What's worse though is that I can produce at least 5 other instances of those tactics in play by you. If you doubt me, all you have to do is respond to this post and I'll be happy to point out what should be painfully obvious to yourself.

Correct it or defend it, those are your only options, otherwise you're a disingenious troll.

Yawn. Coming from someone who just got banned for a couple of weeks for bad behavior, I'm not weeping over your opinion of my behavior. I'm only replying to you in case John has me on ignore (how do you know if that's the case?), since I want to extend public and genuine apologies if he thought I was accusing him of something so awful. Perhaps you'll quote me so he'll see it. If not, I'll PM him and the apology won't be as public as I'd like.

In any case, fuck off to you.

Right, poisoning the well now, like that wasn't expected or something.
So tell me, what does disciplinary action(s) performed against me have to do with your use of demonising tactics? It doesn't change the fact that I know what you did and will point it out. 'K?