Note that rhetorical comparison to terrorists is not the same as accusing of terrorism.
Note that all other community questions on the subject proceeded without stickying because there was no active mod.
Note that your digression into theodicy is actually more fitting for a post at c/Atheist, but since it's your post you might get indulged here.
That said, I believe I had asked you to consider that if you were worldbuilding you would have choices to make about life and death. An author does not receive the same moral judgment for "killing" a character as a character has. The author controls the whole world and decides what the characters are, which includes their deaths, and they wouldn't be the same characters without those deaths. The characters however are culpable in their world for acting in ignorance of what is good for them and for killing one another thereby. If the worldbuilder is incapable of making a good decision about what a character's life should be, then there exists no good decision at all and we cannot act like our own decisions (being characters) are better; if anyone is capable of making a good decision then the worldbuilder is. The same is true for decisions about standards of behavior.
I really appreciate your being here and your memes are rather pointed insights about Christianity. You're following a track that many have pursued from exposure to deep theology through doubt, and you have two possible trajectories, either nihilism or peace. As long as you haven't resolved the tension between your moral standards and what you perceive as God's, you are avoiding that final choice. It's possible to choose either at any time, temporarily or permanently, and solve the tension, but while you complain that your standards are good but your creator's standards are not the tension remains.
I'm going to leave the sticky discussion between the two of you because unless something changes you get to face the same status the other discussions faced. Also, I should have pointed out that my record shows I don't believe in open-ended questions (here you have three options or implied "none of the above" or "write-in"). A community question should be binary, yes-no, such as current mod team versus changes, because otherwise results among three or more options can be gamed without indicating accurate consensus. The last question I posed had more votes in favor of new mod team (unnamed) than then-current inactive mod team, but was not heavily attended. So far yours is even less attended. This forum is rather like herding cats and resists changes to status quo. That's why admin took the steps it did.
When you learn to use logic the way others do instead of using it imbalancedly to direct results to what you already believe, then we can talk more about my supporting your bids.
I am bound by logic. I tested both the Bible and the young earth by logic and found them the inference to the best explanation. I'd love you to start any logic-based post in c/Atheist, where such discussion is usually done, if you want to see who is most logical.
Where would you like me to demonstrate that I know how to use logic? What standards would prove to you that I know? You might be using illogic to say you don't have to propose standards and then when I propose standards you can just say they're illogical: the same trap you say Christians use on you. So your accepting the challenge gives you a duty to define what terms you'd accept.
Meanwhile, I can start by pointing out a couple basics. (1) Either nothing exists or something exists. Can we agree that something exists as an axiom? (2) We can name the sum of all that exists something like All-That-Exists (or maybe "Yahweh" for short). Can we agree on a name for all that exists that would be neutral enough for us to start attributing characteristics to it? (3) Obviously by observation we can define Thing as any subset of All-That-Exists; for instance you and I are Things. So logically all Things except the Thing called All-That-Exists are not All-That-Exists. Do you follow?
So maybe we really are both interested in speaking logically but we just distrust each other. It's something to work on, isn't it?
Note that rhetorical comparison to terrorists is not the same as accusing of terrorism.
Note that all other community questions on the subject proceeded without stickying because there was no active mod.
Note that your digression into theodicy is actually more fitting for a post at c/Atheist, but since it's your post you might get indulged here.
That said, I believe I had asked you to consider that if you were worldbuilding you would have choices to make about life and death. An author does not receive the same moral judgment for "killing" a character as a character has. The author controls the whole world and decides what the characters are, which includes their deaths, and they wouldn't be the same characters without those deaths. The characters however are culpable in their world for acting in ignorance of what is good for them and for killing one another thereby. If the worldbuilder is incapable of making a good decision about what a character's life should be, then there exists no good decision at all and we cannot act like our own decisions (being characters) are better; if anyone is capable of making a good decision then the worldbuilder is. The same is true for decisions about standards of behavior.
I really appreciate your being here and your memes are rather pointed insights about Christianity. You're following a track that many have pursued from exposure to deep theology through doubt, and you have two possible trajectories, either nihilism or peace. As long as you haven't resolved the tension between your moral standards and what you perceive as God's, you are avoiding that final choice. It's possible to choose either at any time, temporarily or permanently, and solve the tension, but while you complain that your standards are good but your creator's standards are not the tension remains.
I'm going to leave the sticky discussion between the two of you because unless something changes you get to face the same status the other discussions faced. Also, I should have pointed out that my record shows I don't believe in open-ended questions (here you have three options or implied "none of the above" or "write-in"). A community question should be binary, yes-no, such as current mod team versus changes, because otherwise results among three or more options can be gamed without indicating accurate consensus. The last question I posed had more votes in favor of new mod team (unnamed) than then-current inactive mod team, but was not heavily attended. So far yours is even less attended. This forum is rather like herding cats and resists changes to status quo. That's why admin took the steps it did.
When you learn to use logic the way others do instead of using it imbalancedly to direct results to what you already believe, then we can talk more about my supporting your bids.
I am bound by logic. I tested both the Bible and the young earth by logic and found them the inference to the best explanation. I'd love you to start any logic-based post in c/Atheist, where such discussion is usually done, if you want to see who is most logical.
Where would you like me to demonstrate that I know how to use logic? What standards would prove to you that I know? You might be using illogic to say you don't have to propose standards and then when I propose standards you can just say they're illogical: the same trap you say Christians use on you. So your accepting the challenge gives you a duty to define what terms you'd accept.
Meanwhile, I can start by pointing out a couple basics. (1) Either nothing exists or something exists. Can we agree that something exists as an axiom? (2) We can name the sum of all that exists something like All-That-Exists (or maybe "Yahweh" for short). Can we agree on a name for all that exists that would be neutral enough for us to start attributing characteristics to it? (3) Obviously by observation we can define Thing as any subset of All-That-Exists; for instance you and I are Things. So logically all Things except the Thing called All-That-Exists are not All-That-Exists. Do you follow?
So maybe we really are both interested in speaking logically but we just distrust each other. It's something to work on, isn't it?