McBell
Unbound
Really?
And what was the "proof" that he'd be an idle, useless cripple for the rest of his life?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Christians: Why doesn't Satan repent?
- Thread starter s.gal83
- Start date
And what was the "proof" that he'd be an idle, useless cripple for the rest of his life?
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
I explicitly said in the comment it was an expectation. Not a proof. And I think having only one leg would be enough to ruin most peoples lives. Yet people are resilient. There are people who play guitar with their feet because they have no arms. There are deaf kids who can play music beautifully.
Even in the business world, there are many people who won't let anything get in the way of their success (and I support that, as long as it is done ethically).
It's a combination of courage and tenacity. That's what I admire.
McBell
Unbound
Which plainly shows that it does not apply.
That it is completely irrelevant to the tangent at hand.
yet you drive down your non-relevant road as tenaciously as a thief fleeing the bank he just robbed.
Most interesting.
Last edited by a moderator:
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
I've shown many but apparently not to your satisfaction. If you want one that badly, outline some criteria so I meet your standard.
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
It was a passing remark that I think tenacity is a positive attribute in most situations. Keywords being "I think", hence, this is my opinion that tenacity (especially coupled with courage), can be a positive attribute under the correct circumstances.
How am I being tenacious? I stated an opinion, you asked for an example, I gave you many - but apparently not to your standard. If it's that important to you, outline criteria that will meet your standard of evidence and I'll probably be able to find an applicable situation.
Edit: If you want me to be tenacious and needlessly argumentative, that can be arranged lol. But unfortunately this is a situation in which tenacity is not desirable.
Last edited by a moderator:
McBell
Unbound
Are you kidding me?
Not one of your examples included someone denying something in spite of proof showing they are wrong.
NOT A SINGLE ONE.
Now you want me to RE-outline the criteria?
Amazing.
Simply Amazing.
McBell
Unbound
You have yet to give an example of someone denying something in spite of proof showing they are wrong.
Let alone an example of such being a good thing.
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
Because you are employing a strawman. What you are describing is fundamentalism.
I said that in SOME situations tenacity can be a good thing. And I already said this isn't a situation where tenacity is desirable.
We're talking about two different things. You are speaking of fundamentalism and I of resilience and fortitude.
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
Also I feel I should point out that I have no context of this thread. I merely read this post:
And commented that if that's the case, pride can be a good thing.
For example, pride may ensure that a student studies hard at a test despite all indications he'll fail it miserably. And as a result, the student may succeed because of it.
And commented that if that's the case, pride can be a good thing.
For example, pride may ensure that a student studies hard at a test despite all indications he'll fail it miserably. And as a result, the student may succeed because of it.
McBell
Unbound
Last line post #37
And this is where you moved the goal posts. Post #38
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
I agree with you on that last line of post 37. But what I was describing was clearly different than holding onto an assertion despite proof to the contrary. I thought by using an example like Terry Fox, that would be self-evident.
But I've made that distinction, you know what that distinction now. And whether or not you agree with that distinction is of no consequence. It's mere opinion and nothing more.
But I've made that distinction, you know what that distinction now. And whether or not you agree with that distinction is of no consequence. It's mere opinion and nothing more.
You've brought so meaningful thought here as if satan would repent there will be no problem on the earth. I wish satan would read your thread to repent.
I also wish the same thing for him.
McBell
Unbound
Satan is under orders.
There is no need for him to repent.
Then why are he and his demons bound for destruction, if he were under orders?
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
Because God is a dick.
McBell
Unbound
what makes you think that satan is?
madhatter85
Transhumanist
It is my understanding that Lucifer came out in open rebellion against God after having the fullness of the gospel given to him in the pre-existence. This is the only unpardonable sin. you can't un-ring that bell.
The fullness of what Gospel? The whole of human existance? How is that nice then, because by that logic, God would have known that giving Satan that information would create the situation, so to avoid the situation he wouldn give the information.
The scriptures tell us that God feels "hurt in his heart" at the violence on the earth and that he is waiting for the day he has appointed for the end of this wicked system
What makes you say that?
The bible.
Rev 20:10
And the Devil who was misleading them was hurled into the lake of fire and sulphur, where both the wild beast and the false prophet [already were]; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.